10:18:54 seems both people just had things misconfigured 15:23:38 Inge permaban, yeah. I haven't even logged back in there since 15:25:52 but nice to see more folks using LMDB's encryption support 15:32:04 @Inge genuinely asking: what kind of value does LMDB encryption bring to the usecase of storing a public blockchain? Anyone who gets physical access to your computer can probably tell that you are running a Monero node based on the LMDB file type and the sizeof the file, plus the `monerod` executable sitting around. If you enabled full disk encryption on the drive that you do all 15:32:06 your monero stuff, that might actually hide your activity at rest. Also, in terms of tamper resistance, Monero already has that by virtue of being on a blockchain. If you have the top block hash, you can validate every single byte of on-chain data 15:33:39 Oh I might have misinterpreted "daemon" in this tweet as a monero daemon 15:51:43 he's not talking about a monero daemon. and encryption was added to LMDB to be used by a monero wallet. 15:51:57 the work to migrate the wallet to LMDB has never been done thouh 20:51:29 someone asked this earlier but is randomx v2 still planned, and what exactly will it change? 21:00:06 whenever the next monero hardfork is scheduled, 21:00:12 it will make verification faster 21:03:28 is it not also meant to disadvantage the X5? 21:33:48 that's a side effect, not a main goal 21:44:48 is it a full rewrite or mainly a change of parameters? 21:49:02 parameter change (perhaps) + outer hash for quick verification (merged and exposed in API, not used in Monero atm) 21:59:04 @hyc I think I'm of the opinion that it should be forked in before or after the FCMP+SA+L consensus update, but not with it 21:59:32 There's too much already changing with that update IMO to also change the block structure 22:01:14 Especially since it is a completely orthogonal change 22:01:37 don't we want to do big changes all at once? 22:03:27 Not necessarily since big changes can come with big issues that need to be resolved, and multiple big changes can have big issues which compound one another 22:04:43 Making big changes all at once makes sense when batching them together causes less work / less thrashing in the long run 22:05:21 Don't think this would be the case for FCMP+SA+L in addition to RandomXv2 22:05:26 Besides the fact that people would have to update their nodes twice 22:07:08 we shouldn't be doing forks that come with big issues that need to be resolved anyway 22:19:44 easier said than done. if I could see into the future and know which bugs would arise in my code, I would simply fix them before they became a problem. unfortunately I am not psychic 22:39:58 Hey, that's what testnet is for, right? Right? 22:41:07 that's what I was thinking, but testnets have less usage and no economic incentives 22:42:04 although that's what wownero is for, right? 23:22:03 about wownero, is there anything monero can do to incentivize solo/p2p mining? 23:23:16 the way wownero bans pools seems to necessarily break p2p pools too, so if applied to monero the hashrate would collapse 23:23:26 but we don't need to outright ban centralized pools, only make them less profitable than p2pool 23:24:59 actually isn't it already the case that p2pool is more profitable? the real question is why most miners still don't use it