Meeting 2hr

UkoeHB: Meeting time :)

Greetings

hi

I guess I will be temporary meeting chair

Updates, what is everyone working on?

Thanks Rucknium.

meeting agenda:

Not much Mordinal activity. By my count, only two Mordinals have been minted in the last week. Zero Mordinal transfer txs in the last week: gist.github.com/Rucknium/67cc9efdf7e43a40c52417611b322d43

A seat has opened on the MAGIC Monero Fund committee. The committee has power to disburse about 300 XMR from its general fund for research and development projects: magicgrants.org/Special-Election-for-MAGIC-Monero-Fund-MajesticBank

Apply to run if you are interested

ive just been testing / running jeffros coincase segregation pr:

I'm reviewing some proposed research of Overseer/EAE/EABE attack / churning. Does anyone have thoughts on what this type of research should cover? In other words, a formalization and what sort of aspects should not be simplified out of the problem?

Diego Salazar: Any updates about the BP++ paper now that there is the new version with math proofs?

DiegoSalazar[m] ^ should ping

just a note on churning, datahoarder / p2pool has some tools to find likely owned inputs consolidations on p2pool.observer

oh yah hi

for last likely ones p2pool.observer/sweeps

plowsof @plowsof:matrix.org: pinging

we'll have an hour estimate to you guys this week

you can lookup any transaction via p2pool.observer/transaction-lookup

Thank you DataHoarder:

I can provide data if desired, it's mostly flagging very certain ones but this could be expanded once I have more time

Thanks Diego Salazar !

DataHoarder: Thanks. Do you have payout address data from the p2pool sidechains from the beginning? Or only recently?

for main p2pool, from early on but not beggining. for mini, since the beggining. older ones could be backfilled theoretically, using this same data.

some empty spots exist in between but same, can be filled with some heuristics. otherwise it's almost all the block data

23528 blocks on main vs p2pool.io reported 23779 for main

Thanks. I think tests or classifications could be formalized. Would take some effort to do so.

1763 blocks for mini vs 1763 on p2pool.io

+ the old pre-fork chains that keep generating blocks

formalized test/classification would be great, also looking into doing backwards looks to what is the most likely of spends for a given output given all existing decoys - fine tune as it finds new data. Ping me if you want more info around this, also reachable on #p2pool-log (to not hog this meeting)

as of this second, my peer lists public rpc nodes consist of 232 nodes not on v18.2.2 and 208 that have updated.. its about 50% for me personally

plowsof: Do you know that because you are sending test Mordinals?

i send a bogus transaction, and the error returned contains the new field 'tx extra to big'

attempt to broadcast a bogus raw tx*

Almost 50% is pretty good. Of course, it could be selection bias from your network neighbors

Can you test on mining pool nodes?

would be better yes ^ data={"tx_as_hex": "did_you_update_lol"} , r = requests.post("node.monerodevs.org:18089/sendrawtransaction", json=data, timeout=10),if "tx_extra_too_big" in r.json():

would need the pools rpc addresses.

some have been collected, and some are publicly available.

hashvaults is even unrestricted 👀.

should be possibke to check a few of the big ones

I guess there is no guarantee that their public RPC node is the same version as their node they use to construct the blocks sent to client miners.

Likely a second node(s),like cake has many to load balance

unrestricted though

I guess they can update and fix config in the same email

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> Likely a second node(s),like cake has many to load balance

> nodes.hashvault.pro:18081/get_info

> unrestricted though

I see a `"restricted": true,` and the version number is missing 🤔

Perhaps you're resolving to a different ip though, and that one is misconfigured?

plowsof just said the same. Definitely a geolocation thing

Anything else to discuss?

Tevador opened a pr for randomx.. seems like it helps with wowneros recent chainsplit behavior

ofrnxmr: Do you know much about the wownero chainsplit? Why did it happen?

Hard fork split on spril 1

Chains diverged by 30+- blocks for the first few days

a few weeks in, nkdes were getting foked off onto a second chain

At one point they were 25 and 18 mh

Therr is still at least 2 chains mining, and at the sme hight

Both using the post-hardfork consensus rules?

i think wow may have messed up the hard fork (11.0 vs 11.0.1)

ofrnxmr[m]: See what ip address you get with dig or nslookup for that domain

But yeah, the old chain is using new consensus rules, but i think they updated late

The split* chains

Before i forget to link it, tevadors pr:

Ok. I don't fully understand what's happened. I hope Wownero community/devs can write a post-mortem when the problem is fixed.

Anything else?

ah fell asleep sorry, update is finishing up my 'implementing seraphis' companion paper

Thats all from me.

Thanks Ruck (and koe :P)

thanks Rucknium[m]