<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Hi guys, nice to meet you :)

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> I found this: eprint.iacr.org/2025/1368.pdf

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Couldn't this be used to protect old wallets against quantum attacks?

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> It only works on EdDSA-based blockchains (and Monero uses EdDSA, specifically Ed25519), and I found it very interesting.

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Here's a crypto explainer:

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> x.com/kostascrypto/status/1949743266850603095

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> I would like to know more about how this can be used on Monero to protect old wallets against quantum computers, thanks for the answers!

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Ah, and this can be implemented without hard-fork

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Hi guys, nice to meet you :)

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> I found this: eprint.iacr.org/2025/1368.pdf

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Couldn't this be used to protect old wallets against quantum attacks?

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> It only works on EdDSA-based blockchains (and Monero uses EdDSA, specifically Ed25519), and I found it very interesting.

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Here's a best explanation:

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> x.com/kostascrypto/status/1949743266850603095

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> I would like to know more about how this can be used on Monero to protect old wallets against quantum computers, thanks for the answers!

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> And this can be implemented without hard-fork

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> @rucknium:monero.social should we discuss "non-outsourceable RandomX" next meeting ?

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> github.com/amiller/nonoutsourceable

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> soc1024.ece.illinois.edu/nonoutsourceable_full.pdf (Nonoutsourceable Scratch-Off Puzzles to Discourage Bitcoin Mining Coalitions)

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> idea: coinbase transaction only valid when signed by the private spend key that claims the reward. This would break centralized pools, but would't affect p2pool and solo miners -- if I understand correctly (quite radical).

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> 3.14stache: We already have discussions and work towards quantum-safe wallets. Monero doesn't use EdDSA, so that work doesn't immediately apply. Ed25519 is not EdDSA.

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> You are way more suited for matrix than r/monero you have my word

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> also #monero-research-lounge:monero.social

<j​berman:monero.social> The latest FCMP++/Carrot tx byte size and verification times on an AMD Ryzen 7950X3D: seraphis-migration/monero #44#issuecomment-3150754862

<j​berman:monero.social> ArticMine

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> This deserve a 3 dimensional colored gnuplot

12:20:39 <m-relay> <a​ntilt:we2.ee> idea: coinbase transaction only valid when signed by the private spend key that claims the reward. This would break centralized pools, but would't affect p2pool and solo miners -- if I understand correctly (quite radical).

this was sort of done on wownero and suggested already

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> i think in the context of the qubic thing, the wownero approach wouldn't have done anything to prevent or stop the "attack". apparently it was all managed centrally. there was no "pooling" as we know of

miners would still have access to keys to spend a full output they mined

<s​packle:monero.social> To be specific, is the proposal to include signatures within RandomX?

<s​packle:monero.social> When the signing is performed before or after PoW, I don't know it can enforce the desired effect. When signing is an integral part of creating PoW, I would think it can.

Block hashing blob is signed, and then PoW is solved on it+signature

I mean, it gets signed on each iteration

<r​brunner7:monero.social> I really wonder, in a Monero mining world without any pools, how many "idealistic" and little miners with small hashrate would lose faith and throw in the towel after mining for months without hitting a block and thus without anything happening at all. Don't underestimate human psychology and the joy of feedback and "receiving" something daily, if only credited hashes for cents i<clipped messag

<r​brunner7:monero.social> n a pool control display.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> this is why _insert pool here, incl p2pool_ have more adoption than solomining

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> It hasnt helped wownero either

<1​7lifers:matrix.org> all of them give up. coin instant ded.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Probably worse distribution now

<1​7lifers:matrix.org> not everyone has a botnet xd

<s​packle:monero.social> In this world full of compromises, I am stuck thinking that mining is a market. The other side of that coin is relatively abundant rewards for those who can tolerate solo mining. Which I only mention to say I doubt coin instant ded.

<r​brunner7:monero.social> 17lifers (Ryan): Not everyone has a botnet? Maybe we should try to solve *that* problem? :)

<s​packle:monero.social> Personally, I would like to know what the options are. As a thought exercise, if nothing else.

<r​brunner7:monero.social> ofrnxmr: Are there *any* reliable reports anywhere, or people to ask who may know, what happened after the introduction of forced solo mining for Wownero? That could be very valuable?

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> the hashrate plummeted initially

and then?

took time to adjust and small miners could find a block as the network is small

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> It fell to, iirc, like 5mh, but was swinging between 10 and 50mh recently. Checking what its at now

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> 16.75mh now

<s​packle:monero.social> What is their block reward?

<s​packle:monero.social> On reflection, and having looked at the scale of their market, perhaps current conditions should not be taken too dearly to heart.

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> btw Miller thought about this, too. Came up with a tired approach (soc1024.ece.illinois.edu/nonoutsourceable_full.pdf)

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> There is also Bobtail (Uncle rewards) which would address miner motivation as a side effect:

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/bobta…n-security-with-low-variance-mining

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> I am still not sure how much Qubic is using centralized pool ops, though.

<r​brunner7:monero.social> spackle: What do you mean with "block reward"? There are no blocks. But net effect is that "mining" Qubic currently has about twice the profitability of Monero mining. I confirmed that personally by mining for a full day and then compare. The final puzzle piece will the the transfer of the earned Qubic coins into my wallet the day after tomorrow. I currently have no reason to doub<clipped messag

<r​brunner7:monero.social> t the transfer will happen.

<s​packle:monero.social> I was asking about Wownero's reward, to see how efficiently their miners translate value to hashrate.

<1​7lifers:matrix.org> HELL YEA- wait that gets u in jail fuck

<a​rticmine:monero.social> What is it currently. My understanding is that there is no tail emission.

<s​packle:monero.social> flip flop: If signing once at the start of each mining iteration is not enough to thwart a malicious pool, I would still think that signing as a part of RandomX itself would address the issue.

<s​packle:monero.social> Remove all separation between creating the signature and the PoW; then the details of any given mining configuration seem of little consequence.

Yes, this is what Wownero does. It blocks pool, but it blocks p2pool too

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> too heavy handed for my taste, right now

<a​rticmine:monero.social> The primary issue I see with the Qubic attack is centralization on the Qubic side. Without a very high degree of centralization in Qubic the attack would not be possible.

<a​rticmine:monero.social> What is useful work, is highly subjective requiring centralized administration for PoUW. Centralized control is actually needed for PoUW.

<a​rticmine:monero.social> For example what is more "useful" Monero mining or blockchain surveillance on Bitcoin?

<a​ntilt:we2.ee> I'd like to learn a bit more about Qubic centralization

<a​rticmine:monero.social> Learning about Qubic is very helpful in dealing with this attack.

<r​brunner7:monero.social> If you ask me it would be easier to list the things about Qubic that are *not* centralized, frankly ... starting with the person(s) controlling the mined XMR being completely unknown to the broad public / known only to a very close inner circle. Little detail, totally unimportant I am sure.

<a​illia:matrix.org> xcancel.com/AilliaLink/status/1952503597054238774