<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> No, liquidity period. 80% of zano is staked, which is why the coin pumps on 0 liquidity

<e​longated:matrix.org> Small as in the community the number of miners the actual security cost

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Which is why a block reward split of 80-20 miners-stakers might be feasible? Still a way to get money without staking while also having finality layer

you say that like we can flip a switch and turn off the network, hi585858

<e​longated:matrix.org> Zano is premined shitcoin, why are we discussing that ?

44 out last 100, indeed

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I said 10:1, with only coinbases stakable

not asking to turn off the network

just sharing actual historical fact happening rn

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Monero mined 100k coins in the first 3 days

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> yeah my numbers are not final, just representative. 10:! works too.

I am recording, trust me hi585858 :)

I hoard the data

<e​longated:matrix.org> So did btc ?

its impressive how they gain from 10 block to 80 block and

now*

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> So when you talk about premine, remember monero did not have a fair emission, crippleminer, fast emission, etx

another point is, would all coinbases be included, or only ones after certain date? or aged?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> all coinbases, i think

which also brings issues about starting up PoS or finality layer that way

<e​longated:matrix.org> Crippleminer was bytecoin

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> No, it was monero

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> so spend a coinbase once and it becomes ineligible forever?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Yup, diego

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> potentially a problem with other coins, but with a tail emission not so much

<e​longated:matrix.org> Afaik it was bytecoin and hence the fork to xmr

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Fork was due to premine lies

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Monero forked, and had crippleminer and later proprietary miner that wasnt as crippled

the other goal is to see if they turn on their selfish mining today as they said

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> I am a Monero historian, having read all the things. Monero was cripplemined. Bytecoin people were salty that Bytecoin scam failed, and were saltier that Monero got taken from them, so they released a crippled miner under a different alias, and people used it.

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> da-data.blogspot.com/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> naw, bytecoin had the crippled miner originally

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> and monero just inherited it

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> cripple miner may have been part of the creating that backstory of bytecoin being around for years

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Right. 2-3 weeks of cripple mining before the fix.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I'm trying so hard to hit 20mb blocks on fcmp. Highest is 15mb so far

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> hard to maintain due to lack of inputs / locked inputs. Started gaming the median by mining an 1/3 blocks as empty, but still run low on inputs before i can get 50 blocks at over 10mb 🙃

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> this finality layer business would still leave us open to empty block mining and tx censoring etc

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> And open the door for someone to outspend us

<e​longated:matrix.org> How does tx censoring work ? You can know which decoy is being spent no Addr no amount

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> and, iiuc, the chain can halt if validators dont come to concensus

<e​longated:matrix.org> For how long ?

<e​longated:matrix.org> How does tx censoring work ? You cant know which decoy is being spent no Addr no amount

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Until we hard fork

say they want to prevent p2pool miners from moving coins

<e​longated:matrix.org> Which pos was stuck ?

they can identify who it is due to how p2pool mines

<e​longated:matrix.org> Which pos chain was stuck ?

if they sweep outputs at once

here's some recent ones tied to a specific miner address p2pool.observer/sweeps

they might have alternate ways of doing so

<e​longated:matrix.org> P2pool is special case

yes, but they could have a view on an exchange transactions, for example

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> With a tfl? Idk

<e​longated:matrix.org> Okay, same can be said for pow miners ? Pools?

there's ways monero tries to prevent this and make it hard to know where a transaction comes from or who is

<e​longated:matrix.org> Idk what’s special for pos, same can be true with pow

but that's a different problem. if an attacker that can sustain 51% hashrate long term exists

and they know a txid

they can mine everything but that tx

<e​longated:matrix.org> With hybrid attacker needs to control both

and orphan any block that contains it

with finality?

<e​longated:matrix.org> Same for pow

if inclusion is decided solely by pow, no

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> There can be staking pools too

<e​longated:matrix.org> Yes same for pow or pos

<DataHoarder> yeah, the yields% that are usually done for by staking is ... waay too high to what monero, already on tail emission, is <<>> someone mentioned that ETH pays 2%

<d​atahoarder:monero.social> Yes I was always referring to pow, elongated. These messages made no sense on IRC as there was no threading there

For context how it looks in irc irc.gammaspectra.live/f8233335da0f5672/IMG_6843.jpeg

<e​longated:matrix.org> I think we need to hire some researcher for pos/pow to make it suitable for xmr

<e​longated:matrix.org> Maybe hire cypherstack to do some research, if they are interested

make ccs people will donate 100%

<e​longated:matrix.org> Diego Salazar:

POS is a change that totally moves the fundamental ways that Monero works. So assume there will be more friction or longer time before it can be done, compared to privacy improvements/changes in signatures and transactions, or even the PoW function change (which I wasn't here for originally!)

fundamental is security and privacy

communism is not

is this the offtopic channel

<e​longated:matrix.org> You can’t reject/move to hybrid, without any research

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> nioc where are we and where is my beanie?

I am with Cat

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> meow.

just about to give her her bedtime snack

she remains unconcerned

51% unknown on last 100 block

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Hi its me.

<b​arthman132:matrix.org> Did they get it or did they just barely missed it?

<e​longated:matrix.org> Would cypherstack be interested in hybrid pow/pos research?

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Yes but you need to pay in qubic

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> I jest. Gimme the money and off we go (we're already low key looking at bit)

<e​longated:matrix.org> Can you open a ccs? Or have a ccs on you own website

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Oooh I can finally try out the whole Kuno thing, or whatever its called.

<e​longated:matrix.org> Kuno works

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> Although honestly I was going to float the idea by you all of a general CS retainer.

<d​iego:cypherstack.com> People and projects are trying to snap up our hours recently and last time I didnt give Monero first dibs on things people got mad at me.

<e​longated:matrix.org> CS retainer is not a bad idea, maybe discuss it in next MRL meeting ?

<a​rticmine:monero.social> This can be very useful in order to encourage self custody for staking

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I'm against staking pools

<a​rticmine:monero.social> Why

<a​rticmine:monero.social> What attack vectors do you see

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The idea of getting paid to deposit your $ on an exchange or pool - youre essentially no different than a speculative stock investor

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Its custodial

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Like eth. "32 eth min" so everyone just lets binance stake for them

<a​rticmine:monero.social> ... but is a self custody staking pool possible?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> yea, and cold staking as well

<a​rticmine:monero.social> I see self custody of the stake as a way to mitigate POS attack vectors

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> academy.particl.io/en/latest/part-g…king.html#connect-to-a-staking-pool

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> > It is highly recommended to be careful about which cold staking pool you choose to stake your funds with. In fact, because you are effectively delegating your staking power to a third-party, staking from a cold staking pool tends to centralize the staking weight of the network.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> particl.wiki/learn/staking/pools

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Its similar centralization issue as mining pools

<a​rticmine:monero.social> What about a P2P self custody staking pool?

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> How it will works?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I dont think you'd need a pool for that, and personally i think stakers should have to participate and run their own infra

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I really don't like the idea of "whale delegates view key of their ledger, and checks back in 20 years"

<a​rticmine:monero.social> So block singing for the staking pools

<a​rticmine:monero.social> Signing

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> In my brief time being around the particl community, ive grown a distaste for the way everybody in pos behaves (passively)

<a​rticmine:monero.social> We need to start thinking outside of the box here

<a​rticmine:monero.social> Like the Bitmain ASIC version of POS

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> my outside the box was: hot staking only (wallet needs to be online to sign blocks), coinbases only (initial stake comes from pow. moving the funds removes the stake, irreversibly).

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Problem with coinase-only is that an entity like qubic could quickly obtain a majority% if they opt not to sell.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> on the other hand, to stake, you'd be forced to contribute pow. You wouldnt be able to stake someone elses coins, or take out a loan to borrow coins against

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The "staking pools" in this scenario, would be mining pools who offer extra reward if you dont withdraw your coins. So it doesnt eliminate pool staking (unless paired with signing the blocks)

<a​rticmine:monero.social> Block signing doesn't prevent pool mining. At least how I see it

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> block signing to prevent mining pools from staking your blocks

<b​arthman132:matrix.org> I mean there are douchbags in every community, but that is just how the world goes

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> My original idea was to split block production into 4min pow blocks and in pos blocks, with a 10:1 emission split. Reorging beyong 2 blocks on either side would require control of both sides.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> i dont think splitting block production was received well either, but the pros are..

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> 1. Emission is still majority pow. Pos blocks are essential a soft finality

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> 2. P2pool payouts would be larger, due to increased pow block rewars

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> 3. Reorgs would be more difficult due to reduced block frequency

<a​rticmine:monero.social> If the signing requirements are only 1% the pools can stake the balance

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> 4 min pow and* 4 min pos

<a​rticmine:monero.social> I was thinking along the same lines with a 50%split block reward between POS and POW

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> i think 10:1 is nicer :P. Majority goes to pow miners, with pos being a bonus 10% for keeping your coinbases locked up to finalize the pow blocks

<b​oog900:monero.social> > Reorgs would be more difficult due to reduced block frequency

<b​oog900:monero.social> I still don't think this is the case when you take into account the amount of work reorged vs just the amount of blocks

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> 50:50 would probably be more attractive to only use pos, and turn off the pow

<a​rticmine:monero.social> The real question here is: Does the why is greater than the sum of its parts apply to security?

<a​rticmine:monero.social> Whole is greater than the sum of its parts between POW and POS

<a​rticmine:monero.social> For security

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The diff would be double, so a 1 block reorg is essemtially 2, and if a pos block comes before you reorg, then youd have to reorg that too. Ignorinf pos entirely, its harder to reorg 1 10min block than 5x2min blocks, isnt it?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Or actuallt, that might be roughly the same, but youd have less reorgs on 10min blocks than on 2min ones

<a​rticmine:monero.social> The idea is mining on the POS block and staking on the POW block

<b​oog900:monero.social> The probability of reorging a number of block decreases exponentially the more blocks, so mining 1 10 min block is "easier" than 2 consecutive 5 min blocks

<a​rticmine:monero.social> So they alternate

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Boog, corrected myself here

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Yup. Diff targetting 4mins per side should have ~360 pow and ~360 pos blocks per day

<c​aptaincanaryllc:matrix.org> if more blocks makes it harder to reorg, how far can you push it?

<b​oog900:monero.social> it wouldn't be roughly the same but yes the amount of random alt blocks should decrease.

<b​oog900:monero.social> 1 block per hash would make it impossible without 51% :)

<b​oog900:monero.social> and assuming all blocks reach the whole network instantly

<b​oog900:monero.social> FWIW I was talking about when the attacker has less than 51%, with more than that they can reorg whatever they want (theoretically) with slower or faster blocks

<c​aptaincanaryllc:matrix.org> right, so with more frequent blocks, qubic reorgs may not have happened

<c​aptaincanaryllc:matrix.org> so increasing block frequency is a band-aid on its own? what are the downsides

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> No, with more frequent blocks, theyd have more reorgs

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> If blocks were 1 minute, assuming 100% luck, theyd have 14 block reorg instead of 7

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> If they had bad luck, they might get 10 blocks, good luck might get 18 blocks

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> more frequent blocks means you need consistent good luck. But each individual reorg is easier

<b​oog900:monero.social> you have assumed their share of the network has dropped by half

<b​oog900:monero.social> increased by double*

<b​oog900:monero.social> their share of the network is the same

<b​oog900:monero.social> they are still the minority hash power, this is all dependent on their luck

<b​oog900:monero.social> monero-project/research-lab #102#issuecomment-2402750881

<b​oog900:monero.social> to get 7 blocks at 20% of the network is 1.4% chance, to get 14 blocks at 20% of the network is 0.04571%

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> No, i assumed that the diffoculty has decreased by half

<b​oog900:monero.social> their share of the hash power is the same

<b​oog900:monero.social> it wouldn't be double because of the exponential but you get what I mean

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Yeah, i'm sleeptalking (i dont sleep)

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I see where i muddied my assumption

<b​oog900:monero.social> you would also need to take into account that with more blocks you get more attempts at reorgs

<b​oog900:monero.social> but because it drops off exponentially faster blocks would still be better for protecting PoW

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> ugh im not seeing that. where in the paper does it directly talk about the different duration of blocks? the targed blocktime?

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> ah nvm

<g​ingeropolous:monero.social> so 10 second blocks here we come?

p2pool 10 second blocks!

with uncles :)