09:40:20 https://x.com/c___f___b/status/1953366557423235576 09:40:26 Confirmed, all Qubic blocks are empty now 09:40:47 the attack mode is to create a bubble with their token. Lots of PR needed, its a psychological operation. 09:40:47 kek 09:41:13 sech1 https://x.com/c___f___b/status/1953366557423235576 09:41:30 your link is broken bcs it applied formatting on the matrix side :P 09:42:04 How generous of them to leave tx fees to Monero pools :) 09:42:52 they are literally just giving away fees to honest miners 09:43:25 who could have expected that the economic design of PoW actually works 09:55:04 This way they can easily be identified:-) 10:02:32 Came across this (relatively) wacky, US Department of Defence supported/sponsored MIT thesis on cryptocurrency PoW today, if anybody is interested: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/153030/lowery-jplowery-sm-sdm-2023-thesis.pdf 15:11:41 Can nodes ignore empty blocks mined if mempool has pending txs ? 15:12:50 you can't see that in consensus in the past 15:13:02 all they have to do is add one tx they control as well 15:13:56 a miner can also get lucky-unlucky and find a block the instant they find another before they get the proper valid set of txs from mempool, so it CAN be empty even in normal conditions 15:14:20 Happens even on btc 15:19:50 Seeing lot of empty blocks today 15:20:34 Consecutive empty blocks too 15:21:42 It will just delay first confirmation of a transaction by a block or two. Much less delay than happened during the black marble flooding, which reached hours for txs paying the lowest fee. 15:23:40 Also before bugfix where pools werent updating block templates/ lol 15:25:32 Yes. That, too: https://rucknium.me/posts/monero-transactions-60-seconds-faster/ 15:54:13 Looks like they've gotten pretty lucky recently. 4 in a row 17:57:29 What rate of orphaned blocks would be a sign for concern 18:06:59 define "sign for concern" 18:07:34 One could say 10%, one could say 50%, one could say 80+% 18:08:47 Depends what you define as success. If able to orphan 100% of blocks, particularly if they decide to censor transactions or mine empty blocks, then that would definitely be concerning 18:11:13 Does that mean 50% of other ppls blocks becoming orphans is OK? No. But not as bad at 100%. What about 10%? Same, not as bad as 50, but still not good. 18:11:15 Also, defining concern. Does this mean "when we have to make major changes to the protocol to protect honest mining"? Or does it mean "when we have to start paying attention"? Because we're already paying attention 18:12:08 a tangible impact on user experience or network stability 18:13:08 Right now it's barely at half a percent, so I'd assume that has very little impact 18:13:48 that is so low because they withhold orphans that they arent winning 18:14:31 If they have 51% of the global hash, they will win more often than not, and can orphan everyones blocks (if they have average luck) 18:24:40 @countbleck:matrix.org and quite some of those come from known pools orphaning each other 18:24:43 33% of them 18:25:58 so they're hurting their own profitability? 18:26:20 That's miserable 18:28:26 oh new toys to play with on 18:28:41 moneroconsensus (sorry I pressed Enter too early) 18:31:10 anyway, i think some discussions should continue about changing the protocol to lower combat such attacks. 18:31:11 Couple things that have been suggested 18:31:13 a) rolling (10 block) reorg depth — to prevent reorgs beyond lock period outputs 18:31:15 b) hybrid POW+POS (pow favored emission 10:1) "proof of staking pow coinbases" — to eliminate a 51% attack on either side of the network 18:31:17 c) miner signed coinbases, with 10% going to miner and 90% to whereever you want (pool payouts etc) — i'm not sure how this would effect an adversary. might hurt unattended botnets, but afaict would actually put us in a worse position _today_, since typical botnets are one of the main reasons cutebitc doesnt have 50% 18:31:19 d) delaying part of the payout on pow emission — incentivizes hodling, but if the coins eventually unlock, i dont think this makes any difference? 18:31:21 e) tee block producers 18:31:23 d) firo and dash have "chainlocks" but iiuc, require masternodes 18:33:52 its not just orphan blocks, you should see some small reorgs (as opposed to just two competing blocks) 18:34:10 `typical botnets are one of the main reasons cutebitc doesnt have 50%` < botnets can sell hashrate on MRR too 18:34:46 if the conditions aren’t correct, then yes they are just wasting energy 18:37:53 Qubic hashrate jumped to 2.5 GH 18:38:05 Qubic doesn't seem entirely profit-motivated...does this help prevent attackers who want to take down Monero? (is that a likely threat?) 18:38:52 lol why wouldn’t they be profit motivated? 18:38:59 > d) delaying part of the payout on pow emission — incentivizes hodling, but if the coins eventually unlock, i dont think this makes any difference? 18:39:01 Qubic doesn't seem entirely profit-motivated...does this help prevent attackers who want to take down Monero? (are such attackers even a likely threat?) 18:39:03 where did you get this information? 18:39:37 I meant right now wrt XMR, since they're sacrificing XMR rewards in the short-term for long-term marketing/PR 18:39:58 long term it's profit by trying to become 51% so they are the only profitable pool 18:40:02 mind you the argument for the selfish mining attack is that they are able to squeeze out slightly more revenue than their peers, creating a downward spiral where more people move to that chain 18:40:12 Problem with a) is that a new node syncing, encountering a chainsplit >10 blocks deep, wouldnt know which side of the chain to follow. I dont know if i see this as an issue, as this is already an issue with sybils and can be worked around by using trusted peers (or seeds) to pull get on the correct chain 18:40:13 b) people don't like POS, but i think this is less POS and more Proof of POW, since you cant "buy-in", and cant stake coins that have been spent. 18:40:15 c) explained above 18:40:16 short term they are effectively wasting waaay more 18:40:17 d) explained above 18:40:19 e) no comment 18:40:21 d) no comment 18:40:23 *that chain -> that pool 18:40:39 Vtnerd: https://explorer.jetskipool.ai/xmr-tracker.html 18:40:57 vtnerd: not what is seen according to tracked data 18:40:59 the othe problem we have today, is that wirh orice falling, monero "profit" falls, and likely the hashrate will too 18:42:35 Yeah, it doesnt look like any miners are migrating. similarily though, zephyr has more randomx hashrate than monero, and miners didnt migrate. but botnets came online to mined it for profit 18:42:43 Had* more 18:43:21 Is this dashboard accurate? 18:43:37 I thought >33% of the network hashrate spells trouble 18:43:51 no 18:44:26 I think the 2 GH figure seems accurate that has been reported so far today 18:44:30 the global hash is greater than 5.57+2.27 18:44:40 Based on the blocks they are finding 18:44:45 the red line should be at 5.57 right 18:45:43 33%+ means (assuming the selfish mining paper is correct), they can get slightly higher returns than the “standard” model predicts. the reorgs are small so they don’t hurt exchanges, etc. 18:46:25 theres some variability on the rate of return, because the propagation of the network comes into play 18:46:40 The non-qubic hashrate is 5.57gh. Adding qubic is 5.57+2.27 18:46:41 Oh wait, maybe those #s are correct then :P lol 2.27/7.84=28.9 18:48:42 the confusing part is that this qubic operator publicly announced it in such a way that it (likely) had an effect on price. the selfish mining attack/paper still kind of expects a return to be made on this time 18:49:46 i think some of the price falling comes from the loss of buy pressure from moneroocean. Even if not a lot, it was 24/7, sustained buy pressure 18:51:12 But also i think there are likely multipke entities taking advantage of the opportunity to "strike while the iron is hot", using "opening" from qubic to pile on 18:51:28 me being the pessimist, given the wild claims about qubic ai and “proof of useful work”, this person had some other motives … 18:52:00 and actually now that I think about it, if you are bold you short the coin and just keep “buying” at the lower price whether its through mining or straight exchange coins 18:52:29 could you spell those motives out for me, I don't follow 18:52:34 no one really pushed back on the claims of ai+useful proof of work from what I saw, so this just keeps going on and on 18:53:05 also the bot armies 18:53:09 push qubic up, monero down. I don’t know much about this person to say anything further 18:53:11 Their code isn't even open-source, it's under the "Anti-Military License" 18:53:53 rumor is they are from bytecoin, or at least one of the relaunches of it 18:53:58 The Aigarth thing *looks* to be a bunch of hype that's trained away from public view, but idk for sure 18:54:22 They probably use it to post twitter comments lol 18:54:57 I wouldn’t give them that much credit, the bytecoin authors figured out how to use linkable ring signatures and ECDH (stealth addresses) in a novel way 18:55:26 I guess merge-mining to attack another coin is somewhat novel, but less so than bytecoin imo 18:56:23 a lot of it looks like a way to (1) generate hype from the AI and crypto bubbles and (2) establish a moral high ground with "ethical AI" and misleading claims about energy consumption 18:58:44 google ai is telling me that aigarth is attempting agi, which is big news because llm _probably_ wont achieve it 18:59:43 lol how did you go from ai hype to trying to dump on monero, what a world 19:00:03 I guess the latter got way more press 19:00:11 if, as an investor i expect a 100x bubble to form, i am willing to take some losses mid term... the dynamics are well known and carried out by professionals who design meme coin crazes 19:00:13 As if this random token is going to outsmart the billions invested in both US and Chinese tech giants 19:00:26 and the numerous academic institutions out there 19:02:00 in hyc's logs (https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/102#issuecomment-1528812041), the period that covers the current protocol version (2022-08-13--2023-04-20) has an average ~0.1% orphan rate. people are overreacting at the current 0.4% as if things are okay only if there are no orphans. 19:02:58 reorgs or orphans 19:03:09 I thought GPUs where best for AI stuff anyway, don't know why they are targeting RandomX which is for CPUs 19:03:11 he seems to be talking about reorgs in that comment 19:03:23 I thought GPUs were best for AI stuff anyway, don't know why they are targeting RandomX which is for CPUs 19:03:59 https://docs.qubic.org/learn/aigarth/ 19:04:31 basically, they are claiming technology which has yet to be explained 19:05:41 they do have some strange decisions...the licensing is non-standard (explicitly anti-military), nodes are EFI executables and don't run on an OS, 2 TB of RAM is needed, contracts are apparently made with a limited subset of C++...some amount of thought was put into Qubic, albeit very strange thoughts? 19:05:49 Because everything on the internet is true 19:06:54 I summed up what monerod reported as the "alternative blockchain size", almost always 2. maybe I was wrong and that means only 1 orphan per event? 19:06:55 after further thought, an orphan is reorg’ed from the perspective of the “other side” of the network 19:06:57 "truth: we just mine monero, and produce qubic out of thin air" probably "also, the only ai we use, is for the bots that we use to generate 98% of the dicussion. Even my pfp is ai" 19:07:52 2 means 19:07:53 001 orphaned 19:07:55 001 002 replaced it 19:08:16 001a 19:08:17 001b 002 * 19:09:17 I just looked into his post. he’s talking about reorgs from his perspective. there may have been more, its just that he was on the winning side of the reorg 19:10:20 as in, hyc reported 0.1%, but that was 0.1% reorg from his perspective, not necessarily the total number of reorgs during that period 19:11:11 and [chaser](https://matrix.to/#/@chaser:monero.social)people thing there should be 0? yeah with 2min block time the probability goes way up (dont know how much, but certainly higher than btc) 19:13:00 does that mean that, to have a realistic measurement, you'd need to collect data from have multiple nodes in diverse locations, and merge the registered reorg events? 19:13:48 A rough estimate would be to double that 0.1%, assuing no deliberate bock withholding during that time, right? My web app is showing what the `get_alternate_chains` RPC provides. That gets alt chains and orphans that did not necessarily cause a "re-org" according to my node. In other words, when my node sees a block that eventually wins the contested chain, the log won't say "re-o rg", it will just say an alternative block was received, AFAIK. 19:15:08 [chaser](https://matrix.to/#/@chaser:monero.social) I believe so, for a baseline. because if you happen to direct connect to a pool, you’re going to get those blocks first, whereas someone else may see it from another perspective 19:15:44 and this is just the standard everyone competing scenario. the selfish mining changes things, but propagation is still important (the paper claims so) 19:17:31 Alt blocks are discarded by the node on a restart, but `--keep-alt-blocks` as a startup flag will keep them through a restart: https://docs.getmonero.org/interacting/monerod-reference/#testing-monero-itself 19:19:47 Otherwise you have to be connected to every node 19:21:01 Don't alt blocks still propagate if they achieve the required PoW, regardless of how out of date they are? So the blocks should still be accessible by RPC, if not the log. 19:21:16 If i am solo-mining, and only have 5 peers, and a mining pool with 1000 peers sends their block out to 200 other miners, chances are that nobody is mining on top of my block 19:21:38 And my block will be orphaned, and most of the network wont even know it exists 19:21:52 This PR by jeffro256 would change that behavior AFAIK: "cryptonote_protocol: ignore fluffy blocks past certain depth" https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/10023 19:22:12 Only if you see them by connecting to a peer who has it, iiuc 19:23:30 Hmm 19:26:26 it doesn’t get relayed if doesn’t goto “main chain” 19:27:14 so someone would report it, but nodes running standard clients wont propagate it further until confirmed pow to be best 19:37:33 is it safe to accept Monero using selfhosted BTCPay and monerod fullnode? 19:37:35 should any action be performed considering this attack? 19:37:41 hello by the way :) 19:39:47 we are first telecom that accepts Monero and huge XMR holders. 19:39:49 we have two networks and some servers, but they are not free to mine Monero. 19:39:51 can we help Monero team some other way except buying above 200$? 19:40:11 You'll want to inspect your confirmations amount, the suggested numbers haven't really changed 19:42:06 10 confirmations is enough? 19:42:07 how safe is mainnet now? 19:42:09 I see less than 0.5% orphans and having thoughs that all habbwning today is all about media shitspam and not actual takeover, but what’s Monero team standpoint? 19:43:05 mainnet remains safe. 10 confs remains safe 19:43:51 any countermeasures ongoing? and maybe some bounties by core team? 19:43:59 For this to change, the attackers would have to obrain 51% of network hash and roll back the chain by over 10 blocks, as well as replace them wirh empty blocks (or refuse to mine your transactions) 19:44:22 https://matrix.to/#/!zxoYuvZdPYtIuWSQnn:monero.social/$FNii6AI92_PclVkezeJIWGhJUNYRcbMBWGhuYuQsUNw?via=xmr.mx&via=matrix.org&via=monero.social 19:44:36 annelinlol: Qubic hasn't really increased its hashpower share in the last one or two weeks. They are doing different annoying things with their current hashpower, but nothing that affects the security of confirmed transactions. 19:46:30 There is no evidence of any successful nor attempted double-spends by qubic or anyone else. 19:46:53 you can only double spend your own spends anyway 19:47:05 And you would be able to see that, contrary to some myths that have appeared. 19:47:42 Some people don't know about key images work? Damn, what a show 19:48:20 they claimed that they succeed 51% attack and voluntarily stopped but it looked like very fake and bait to panicsell over all the media 19:48:24 you can enable dns checkpoibts if that makes you more comfortable 19:48:34 The most number of blocks they have re-orged is 2 so far. And it is (roughty) exponentially harder to re-org more blocks. 19:49:02 They claimed 51%? Do you have a link? 19:49:21 Are they being ddosed or are they actually just dropping off again 19:49:23 theyve claimed 44%+ over and over on twitter 19:49:26 Rucknium: was it them? I guess they'll claim it either way 19:49:33 I thought they stopped after their pool got "ddosed" 19:50:06 The 2 block reorg was "unknown" pool 19:50:35 The 2-block re-org at height 3,472,097? I am pretty sure it was them. 19:50:48 i really think theyre doing what i described the other day. "dark" mining 19:52:25 i think a mitigation for normal pools would be to peer against one another 19:53:00 Where did you describe dark mining, can't find it 19:54:10 Here 19:56:25 it’s strange, but post from shitter about “we are stopping attack at XMR 250$” is either disappeared or i just cant find it 19:56:56 https://x.com/Krash_AK47/status/1953529103908212907 19:57:59 also https://x.com/Qubic1000X/status/1953382905209913491 19:58:09 orig https://x.com/c___f___b/status/1953350025783742513 19:58:31 so all of their shit not affecting mainnet currently as I see 20:00:29 He changed his mind and said that he'd continue the attack id price fell 20:01:01 I think the price is someone else taking advantage of the environment to liquidate some longs and create fear 20:06:57 I see the fear. But is that threat real or its just panicsell? 20:06:59 I have some tasty orders at $200 just for myself. If someone needs to sell $XMR Im here 20:09:30 Now XMR moving out from the weak hands. 20:10:37 I don't think its a panic sell. I think its a "coodinated" effort to create fear, except i dont think cfb is behind the selloff 20:11:13 Both 20:11:16 cfb likely wanted the price to remain high, so he can keep the cost of his attack as low as possible 20:11:38 Nah, i think triggered liquidations are more likely and panic sell 20:11:59 Not much liquidations on binance perp 20:12:03 Likely than* 20:12:33 its all about advertising their another shitcoin by “we took monero network” 20:12:52 Someone dumped around 276 and then panic sell/sl triggered 20:13:03 and the price is clearly shows panicsell in range 260-240 imo 20:13:12 This 20:14:45 if mainnet remains safe and all their fud will be thrown to /dev/null, there is 99% possibilty that we’d restore 300+ levels 20:14:59 We can cont liq talk in markets, i just wanted to mention that i dont think the selloff was intentional by cfb 20:16:25 It may not be cfb, but his actions don’t help xmr price 20:17:10 If he was worried about xmr price he wouldn’t be attacking xmr publicly 20:18:26 Anyways we need a decade to bring price importance into monero ecosystem 20:18:38 Last decade was don’t buy monero 20:19:42 anhdres explained it nicely at monerokon 20:20:18 Ah fuck, sorry didn’t notice this was mrll 20:20:40 Send invite pls 20:21:04 He was referring to Monero Markets 20:48:18 More like "ofrn pretends to rob a bank, and someone else actually starts robbing it" 20:48:23 if it gets us to add significant hashrate, it should 21:01:33 @rbrunner @rucknium one thing i wonder now, is that peering /connectivity of mining nodes can be gamed to get an advantage - or can be worsened by default 21:02:45 with respect to selfish mining? or some other thing? the original paper graphed out different propagation statistics and the reward based on that 21:03:13 meaning, a node that is multiple hops away from a large mining pool (who likely is very well connected), means a higher likelyhood of your block becoming the one that is reorged out 21:03:13