<chaser> @longtermwhale:matrix.org "1 month work for 200 xmr ... is a punch in the face": > <@longtermwhale:matrix.org> and by the way as some know me as a generous donator for the cause, let me please just say one last thing.

<chaser> people value their time differently, also depending on circumstances and priorities. they're free to. with a higher price, Kayaba took a risk of not getting funded / delayed funding and suffering lower XMRUSD price. let them do that.

<chaser> if you know someone who can do this research at the same level of quality cheaper/faster, get them involved. we always need more talent.

<chaser> if you harass people for asking their price for voluntarily offered work (especially after a merged CCS), eventually they won't offer their work. don't treat contributors like that. the CCS as employment is rather inflexible and a non-option for many potential contributors. no need to make it less welcoming.

<chaser> the past year showed there's a lot of money on the sidelines ready to fund Monero R&D. the bottleneck will always be talent. skimping on what other people should be able to pay to one of our top researchers is insane. even the bargaining over 25 XMR felt unnecessary, given that the research addresses an inherent weakness of the network that's being exploited as we speak.

1 month work for 200 xmr ... is a punch in the face... +1!

<chaser> > <@spirobel:kernal.eu> the real issue with pos is that it has a rough time explaining how more stake makes it more secure. The empirical evidence in the case of solana and eth shutdowns shows that more stake would not have improved the situation. Its only a matter of if the software has bugs. At the same time protocols ar [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/pqrkybYKR2VQNlp1 ]

<chaser> @spirobel:kernal.eu "the real issue with pos is that...": 1) a higher total stake raises the required capital expenditure of an attack, analogously to PoW. 2) Ethereum never had a shutdown. 3) rewards (and penalties) increase game-theoretic robustness compared to altruism or indirect benefits.

<chaser> my impression is that you repeat your unresearched talking points ad nauseam and it doesn't benefit anyone.

<longtermwhale:matrix.org> @chaser: my point is not capitalism, which you describe. i agree with capitalism. but let it be known, the best things in life, especially in privacy, dont have their origin nor their goal in capitalism.

<longtermwhale:matrix.org> point made is that for example jbermans work is irreplaceable, so why doesnt he ask for 300, 500 xmr per month? talent is the bottleneck eh mate :) in hardcore-capitalism world jberman asks 1000 xmr per month. but hardcore-capitalism is for wall street or shitcoin project launches. monero is and has been simply a good cause for privacy. dont we agree on that???

<longtermwhale:matrix.org> if somebody asks for 1000 instead of 100 xmr, it will get funding anyway. but 900 xmr could have been spent on other good causes. just because the CCS get funded, doesnt mean the source of the money is limitless. there is lots of other privacy projects too. the world is in dire need. and thats coming from somebody who casually donates 5digits here.

<longtermwhale:matrix.org> ps: i dont like you characterizing stating my opinion as harassment. its not like i am here every week pointing fingers at this person?! (which i even thanked and wished all the best in DM, he does great work!)[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/xe-M0bYKM1lETXdV ]

<helene:unredacted.org> I would much rather see a CCS proposal like kayabaNerve's than the ones I see — which get accepted and funded — that just say "i'm gonna work on this" with almost no details of what they're doing or why; and I'm not saying that's all of the "3 months of work" proposals at all, but some are a bit outrageous in having absolutely no information or plans

<helene:unredacted.org> kayabaNerve's was far more detailed than the average CCS proposal, not AI generated, stated the end goals and the intentions behind it, which is more than most of the CCS proposals we can see nowadays

<spirobel:kernal.eu> @chaser: 1. no explanation how much of a difference it makes. In case of a real attack a much smaller amount could be sufficient as the network can fork and slash the stake. (similar to how we now slash longer chains that try to reorg) 2) Ethereum had a 25 minute "halt" that was the result of a bug. medium.com/offc [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/vPfW1rYKVGJfdi1Z ]

<spirobel:kernal.eu> if this is your impression @chaser:monero.social then refute them. I am not the only one with these viewpoints. from jberman's comment on the finality layer book

<spirobel:kernal.eu> > I also maintain the following when thinking about PoS: it is technically (and in my opinion economically) possible for stakers to receive 0 reward whatsoever (NEITHER the block reward NOR fees). There would be significant economic reason for Monero holders to stake, even if receiving 0 reward:

<spirobel:kernal.eu> > 1.It would secure the network, and by extension, people's holdings.[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/weHt1rYKZFNIZHNC ]

<spirobel:kernal.eu> Its on you to read the literature and find good answers for these questions. I did that. I came to the impression that the state of the art has no answers. You claim there is merit to these over complex systems. The burden is on you to explain how they actually increase security. Even this one topic of liquid staking that is d [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/1aaH17YKM24wcWRk ]

<antilt:we2.ee> imho slashing is key to any PoS system's success

<spirobel:kernal.eu> We need to have as a low a stake as possible in our case. The benefit of Monero is that it is possible for whales to go in with size and not have their privacy damaged. If a large portion of the marketcap is staked like in the case of zano, solana ( ~70% staked) this assumption is broken. So we need to think carefully about how much stake is actually needed and not blindly follow

<monerobull:matrix.org> @antilt:we2.ee: of course it is, without that, can it even work?

<monerobull:matrix.org> if there is no punishment for misbehaving nodes that just slowly corrupts the entire network

<basses:matrix.org> idk, others may know. > <@trackaipac.com:matrix.org> Nice find! Are there any monero wallet command line flags that can used to help mitigate a full node from syncing bad blocks?

<articmine> @monerobull:matrix.org: Why would the nodes misbehave if they have a stake in the network?

<monerobull:matrix.org> misconfig? setting incentives?

<monerobull:matrix.org> if there is no direct cost to misbehaving then there is no direct incentive to behave

<radanne:matrix.org> @articmine: It's called nothing at stake problem.

<articmine> I am very familiar with the nothing at stake problem. It has been recognised for well over a decade, and it has not been resolved.

<articmine> Slashing is at best a bandaid.

<articmine> My naive question exposes the fundamental problem with POS.: [... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/qs3B3rYKX1RBNmN0 ]

<articmine> The cost of capital namely the cost of borrowing the stake, with no risk of default can be zero.

<articmine> So at a fundamental level there is nothing at stake.

<antilt:we2.ee> if you own a bank the cost to buy out PoW is also zero

<helene:unredacted.org> not really, no; you need to build out the infrastructure with physical resources, electricity is a finite resource that isn't pegged to the value of fiat, and there's even more issues at play than that

<helene:unredacted.org> you might be able to make an unlimited amount of your local currency, but it'll quickly be worth not very much as a currency

<articmine> @antilt:we2.ee: No. Ownership of bank stocks does not allow for a 51% attack on Monero

<antilt:we2.ee> If Monero is seen as a threat, estimated returns could be positive. BTW what is this economic theory you are citing, Artic ? Is there a book you can recommend ?

<helene:unredacted.org> @articmine: misread instructions, did a 51% attack on a bank

<articmine> online.hbs.edu/blog/post/cost-of-capital

<articmine> This is an example of the cost of capital. In the case of Monero the risk free rate of return, interest rate, would be negative were it not for the ability to self custody. This is because Monero has a lower rate of growth of the money supply than gold. The rate spread could be minimized by providing collateral or in the case of a bank by using the fractional reserve at no cost.

<articmine> As an aside if Monero were to adopt POS it could be 51% attacked at no cost by one or more banks, or more likely by one or more bank regulators.

<articmine> There is a lot of economic theory on this both Austrian and Keynesian

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> @articmine: it costs zero to acquire xmr for banks ?

<articmine> @jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org: Yes. They are called exchanges

<articmine> Why does the community respond with Monero run?

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> @articmine: Will exchanges end up destroying an asset? Slashing could burn their XMR, forcing them to reimburse clients.

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> If PoS is simple to set up, more users might choose self-staking over keeping their XMR on exchanges.

<articmine> This has been my point for over a decade

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> @articmine: They can do that without POS too.

<articmine> I formulated The Second Pirate Savings and Trust on POS. back in 2015

<articmine> Attack

<articmine> @jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org: Way harder to do. Self custody will lead to a brutal short squeeze on the malicious exchange

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> Currently if a "state actor" wants to kill xmr, they can do it without any issues; even a pubic has been able to attack.

<articmine> I did that against the First Pirate Savings and Trust back in 2012 with Bitcoin. Very profitable

<articmine> @jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org: Not that simple, especially if the state is vulnerable to it's own courts

<sgp_> If they're running a fractional reserve, then the real XMR is elsewhere and could be staked to countervote

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> @articmine: and the exchange is not vulnerable to any court ?

<radanne:matrix.org> Apologies in advance if my comment is out of place. Nevertheless, I feel there is a need to point this out. Throughout all this PoS exploration, has anyone considered the final outcome, should we ever deploy a PoS solution?

<radanne:matrix.org> Some of you may not be on X and might be unaware that this prolonged conflict escalated to the point when many stated they would rather leave, or fork, than abandon the foundational PoW principles.

<radanne:matrix.org> We had two significant polls going, both demonstrating a clear super-majority against PoS implementation. Now, we get a forcibly merged CCS proposal through a four-hour-long public tantrum, forcing disruption of the MRL meeting, preventing constructive debates with every third message on average, which only reflects a l[... more lines follow, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/oOfQ47YKQmpNcEhU ]

<sgp_> The super majority absolutely did not say PoS in any form is a non-starter

<syntheticbird> ChatGPT wording. opinion ignored

<radanne:matrix.org> I'm referring to two polls on X, I don't know about your your consensus in this group.

<radanne:matrix.org> @syntheticbird: Dumb comment, it's hand written.

<articmine> I have said it before and will say it again. I have seen zero consensus for POS here

<radanne:matrix.org> @radanne:matrix.org: It's funny the community opinion should be laughed at.

<radanne:matrix.org> Kill the messenger if you must.

<sgp_> The fact we're seeing 18(?) block deep reorgs demonstrates that there's a risk risk of sustained 51%. Which leaves us with fewer options. It's a matter of accepting that potential risk

<syntheticbird> @radanne:matrix.org: Do you have a proof that these polls have not been tampered through bots or other deceptive tactics ?

<syntheticbird> Yes, we ignore outside random polls, for this reason

<radanne:matrix.org> I'm coming with an option, as soon as. Nevertheless I find this lack of respect to clear community rejection concerning.

<radanne:matrix.org> thumb me down all you want

<syntheticbird> @radanne:matrix.org: I fucking can't stand this. Everywhere i look I see the Authority purposefully ignoring the majority dumbass fallacy.

<interestingband:matrix.org> @syntheticbird: "we ignore ..." who are we ?

<sgp_> Can we kick that convo out of here and to lounge at least

<rucknium> Hi. This is -lab.

<radanne:matrix.org> I could say the same, about the X polls, why ingoring them?

<articmine> @sgp_: This does not justify pushing POS.

<articmine> Especially given the many POW solutions that are not being discussed due to the to the air being sucked out of the room

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> @radanne:matrix.org: Which option ? you posted that pos is rejected based on a poll done on X by someone who is anti pos, without even understanding how its going to be implemented

<radanne:matrix.org> Thank you for saying that

<sgp_> ArticMine I'm very pro other PoW improvements, but none of them have been shown to work with 51%+ mining control

<jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org> @articmine: Pushing POS ? so we cant even discuss it 😅

<rucknium> Ironically real work is getting done in -lounge right now. Maybe the two conversations can switch places?

<sgp_> At least on their own

<syntheticbird> @sgp_: huh yeah i do hope it don't work with 51% mining control. Otherwise the consensus algorithm is flawed

<syntheticbird> or do you refer to something else?

<radanne:matrix.org> @jack_ma_blabla:matrix.org: I will submit proposal on git addressing these issues. It'd be for you guys to consider the validity. When it's ready you will know.

<sgp_> Maybe I should specifically say "near-enough percentages to regularly reorg past 10"

<articmine> I am proposing creating a GitHub issue to discuss POS and keeping this POS discussion out of both Lab and Lounge

<syntheticbird> @articmine: fine with it. If important points or breakthrough are found in this issue they can be reintroduced through a meeting.

<radanne:matrix.org> @articmine: That would be very respectful to the super-majority I'm referring to. We may be on X, but we are not bots ;)

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> All potential solutions should be discussed where appropriate. I don't see a reason to cordon off any group of them.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Also, a finality layer isn't explicitly PoS. DNS checkpoints qualify as one, just a centralized one.

<radanne:matrix.org> @kayabanerve:matrix.org: Take them to Github and spare us your tantrums. It's not constructive.

DNS checkpoints set up in a centralised way are centralised*

<antilt:we2.ee> "Stake" (with or without reward) is merely one of several ways to select PBFT delegates. Random selection has been used... Selecting a small subgroup is necessary for exec speed. Just to start off newcomers who may wonder about the religious fervor

<radanne:matrix.org> Yes, staking as a PBFT delegate selector does enable fast subgroups. Makes no difference. Elites can dominate validation and withhold PoW block signatures. The majority of attacks are cheap if you already have the coins. This PoS layer opens a whole new playground for analytics firms. Funny, some want to solve the unsolvable p [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/q-eK5bYKd0ZUaUl0 ]

19:18:17 <br-m> <rucknium> Ironically real work is getting done in -lounge right now. Maybe the two conversations can switch places?

I was observing this before yeah :D

<chaser> > <@longtermwhale:matrix.org> my point is not capitalism, which you describe. i agree with capitalism. but let it be known, the best things in life, especially in privacy, dont have their origin nor their goal in capitalism.

<chaser> @longtermwhale:matrix.org "so why doesnt he ask for 300, 500 xmr per month?": if someone could get more for their CCS, they should absolutely get it. contributors are the most important thing for Monero to survive. if anything, it would signal that good work pays off in the CCS, and attract more contributors (yay!) rather than [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/nuiA6bYKZGhvaGw1 ]

<ofrnxmr> I think people are completely ignoring that most ccs are 90-100% funded by 1 person

<ofrnxmr> Community donations are few and far between. I dont know why this is being discussed in -lab, but anyway.. pretending that ccs's are funded by our great community is misleading at best

<syntheticbird> @ofrnxmr: "All good stories deserve embellishment."

<ofrnxmr> Jeffro, jberman, and vtnerds ccs were up for like a month barely funded until the whale, vik, and general fund cleared up a large %

<ofrnxmr> @syntheticbird: Yeah. Its good PR to act like monero community are generous, but internally, we need to respect that we are (the majority of the time) draining 1 or 2 wells

<syntheticbird> @ofrnxmr: I love public relation 👍️

<syntheticbird> /s

<ofrnxmr> I love pull requests too

<aillia:matrix.org> > <@longtermwhale:matrix.org> my point is not capitalism, which you describe. i agree with capitalism. but let it be known, the best things in life, especially in privacy, dont have their origin nor their goal in capitalism.

<aillia:matrix.org> "...the best things in life, especially in privacy, dont have their origin nor their goal in capitalism": 100% there are more examples in history like the insulin or monoclonal antibodies (or many many many others) inventors who would be multi-billionaires if we lived in a pure value-creation-based world model... But more ofte [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/suWY6rYKQmdCYUh3 ]

<venture> > <@sgp_> The fact we're seeing 18(?) block deep reorgs demonstrates that there's a risk risk of sustained 51%. Which leaves us with fewer options. It's a matter of accepting that potential risk

<venture> I'm really at odds here, but how is a BFT-POS with >33% needed to disrupt discussed as an option against PoW 51% (or 33% with selfish-mining). I don't know enough about PoS, but it seems to me, PoS would merely hide malicious behaviour since re-orgs would not happen when miner's always select the tip of the PoS finality layer?

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> @venture:monero.social: Proof of Work is only 51% is a perfectly synchronous network. We could implement a synchronous BFT algorithm which also achieves 51%.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> We're all fine with requiring every Monero node to use quantum entanglement for communication, right?

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> *in a perfectly synchronous network

<venture> but where is the gain? it's still a 51 attack vector shifted from work to stake?

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> My comments that the abound is 34% is because the Monero network should be treated as asynchronous. In an asynchronous network, 34% is the theoretical bound. You can't do better.

<venture> 34% is achievable with PoW and selfish-mining mitigations as well...

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> So this isn't really about PoW vs a BFT algorithm which doesn't solely achieve probabilistic finality

<sgp_> preventing deep re-orgs that invalidate ring sigs is a significant privacy protection that PoW really struggles to provide unfortunately

<sgp_> at least on its own

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Proof of Work only achieves 51% security in a theoretical ideal that can never be realized in any actual instantiation.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Proof of Work literally only requires 0.000...1% to be malicious in an asynchronous network, however stupid that sounds.

<ofrnxmr> I think we've accepted defeat on ring-sigs already

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Clarifying, in an asynchronous network, we assume the adversary has full control over when messages are delivered and in which order they're delivered.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Accordingly, in an asynchronous network, an adversary who produces 1 H/s can produce blocks and simply say that no other miners are allowed to send the messages containing their blocks to take control of the network.

<radanne:matrix.org> You know what it means when people say it can't be done? It means that A) They can't do it B) They don't want to do it. Your asynchronous vs synchronous mantra is without substance and as already discussed, inv.alid.

<ofrnxmr> ay least to me, Finality isnt about protecting privacy, but about protecting value

<sgp_> if I can get people to agree that from a privacy perspective, relying solely on nakamoto PoW for ring sigs is a big privacy risk to leave open from a network design perspective, hey that's progress at least :p

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> That's the academia of it. In practice, you can say 'if synchrony occurs, which we don't expect nor premise on security on, we get better security'. That applies for both PoW and BFT algorithms.

<ofrnxmr> Invalid txs = refunded txs. This is unacceptable. Privacy means nothing if txs cant be trusted to not be reversed

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> There are plenty of mitigations which can be put into play if synchrony happens to exist. The question is if we have validators over Tor, and Tor is being DDoSd, if validators will actually successfully communicate in less than a few seconds.

<radanne:matrix.org> @kayabanerve:matrix.org: You said it yourself. The synchronous networks don't exist. Please don't pretend you know it all, because you don't.

<sgp_> I agree value is certainly important (arguably the most important), but the privacy risk is also a consideration (today especially)

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> @radanne:matrix.org: Synchrony here just means communication occurs within a time bound. That can occur although it'd never guaranteed.

<ofrnxmr> @sgp_: nobody is complaining about reusing rings. People are, however, complaining about lost funds

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> The issue with synchronous consensus networks is that they require synchrony constantly occur. That is impossible.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> (or even that messages are always delivered instantly, with zero latency)

<ofrnxmr> @ofrnxmr: nobody is complaining about exposing the trust spend**

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> *it's never guaranteed

<sgp_> why I am arguing with you about the importance of privacy 😭 jeez, why is there even an argument here

<radanne:matrix.org> > <@kayabanerve:matrix.org> @radanne:matrix.org: Synchrony here just means communication occurs within a time bound. That can occur although it'd never guaranteed.

<radanne:matrix.org> You will have in-depth opportunity to discuss that. I'm sure you'll be completely unbiased as usual when confronted with facts that may threaten your precious ideas. Wait for it. If I'm wrong, you'll win, if you're wrong I win. Fair play.

<ofrnxmr> Because privacy is useless if the tx rm -rfd

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> @venture:monero.social: TL;DR 34% is an academic theoretic bound. Proof of Work doesn't magically avoid it. Proof of Work just assumes a synchronous network, only offering probabilistic finality, and anyone who uses it is saying that the internet is 'good enough' it's fine.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> I would not be surprised if with the 18-block reorganization, a hostile mining pool at least temporarily had >51% of the hash rate. Accordingly, I'm unconvinced by any 'pure' PoW ideas moving forward, though I imagine yes, our PoW could be made better against adversaries with <50% of the hash rate.

<venture> well. it's also never guaranteed that a melted pot forms an ice-cube again... just highly improbable as I understand 😅

<venture> i personally like the idea of workshares from pool miners, what tevador drafted

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> That's why my advocacy is for a finality layer, offering security even against adversaries with >51% of the hash rate, which we see a centralized instance of with the DNS checkpoints.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> I'd prefer a decentralized solution however.

<radanne:matrix.org> Is staking solution with ballbark 500 validators, government whale players, DNM players, computationally limiting and expensive (your words) decentralized enough?

<venture> the thing is PoW makes malicious behaviour visible. PoS would not really be as easily detected if a malicious super majority gets hold

<ofrnxmr> Invalid txs is a problem under any model, private, not private, rings, or fcmp

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Actually, it should be pretty easy to identify if PoS either stalls or starts finalizing a blockchain with the minority of work or starts issuing multiple finalizations.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> We're already tracking multiple copies of the Monero blockchain as consensus flickers between them.

<venture> @kayabanerve:matrix.org: no. the tip that is mined upon will always immediately switch to the finality layer. you can't gauge anymore "minority of work"

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> ... the tip currently immediately switches to the block with the most work? We still track chain splits now?

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> The tip would be the block with the most work building upon the most recently finalized block. It'd be obvious if we re-org'd from a longer chain to a shorter chain solely because a new finalization was issued. Same as we re-org now from a shorter chain to a longer chain.

<venture> @kayabanerve:matrix.org: that's because re-orgs happen.. it wouldn't be a thing anymore

<radanne:matrix.org> The problem isn't only stalling by withholding signatures. Once of the key issues is the potential adversaries already hold so much monero that could easily have 67% majority right from the start. Did you look into the attack vector and are you able to describe it and mitigate it? How?

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> Re-orgs would still exist for unfinalized blocks.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> > The tip would be the block with the most work building upon the most recently finalized block.

<radanne:matrix.org> @kayabanerve:matrix.org: wonderful, and you call that a solution

<radanne:matrix.org> It's really shame your unquestionable talents are diverted the opposite direction.

<kayabanerve:matrix.org> You're literally a Nazi sympathizer who tried to cancel me because you don't like my attempts to organize research into decentralizing Monero. I have no idea why you feel you have any ground here or why anyone is obligated to listen to you.

<ofrnxmr> Politics have entered the chat

<rucknium> Cool off please. Thank you.

<rucknium> Need to bring back #monero-beef.