00:00:01 right but they can't do that and simultaneously mine their own chain 00:00:03 by that "auditor" that is getting a paid a ridiculous amount 00:00:14 That's the downside to mining longer and longer attacking chains with minority hashpower: you're gambling. Satoshi actually referred to it as similar to the "gambler's ruin" problem in the bitcoin white paper. 00:00:25 Ya they can. at least for the initial block 00:00:40 its exactly like the crash gambling game 00:00:42 I mean, they can split their hash power.... 00:00:46 they will be mining to a different wallet? 00:00:52 500/hr 🤣 00:01:15 redirecting the block to their own pool 00:01:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDaB8N7n2kU 00:02:00 yeah but they wont be getting any XMR from it, just causing a problem 00:02:01 Find share with difficukty greater than block target -> intercept it and send it to qubic instead of supportxmr 00:02:44 I think they would rather the money 00:02:45 the block template you mine has to have the pool operator's address to be a valid share 00:02:48 you can't just "send it to qubic instead" 00:02:59 you can hide the block 00:03:09 and mine ontop of it secretly 00:03:19 gotcha 00:03:55 pool operator's would do well to monitor for this type of behavior and issue bans as needed 00:04:11 it seems detectable, if you have a alrge miner with much worse luck than you'd expect 00:04:13 the fact they just failed that reorg that they were building up tells me they dont have 51% 00:04:28 What happens if we give Belarusian IPs to Ukrainian SBU? 00:04:29 B) 00:05:00 I stg if cfb is this century’s Franz Ferdinand 00:05:16 11 confs on my transfer 🥲🥲. Lets see if she dies 00:05:24 SBU is Ukraine Intelligence 00:05:58 They could have been unlucky :P 00:06:35 they are building one again 00:06:46 CFB = Century Ferdinand B) 00:10:41 I wonder how much selfish mining would affect the global hash rate 🤔 00:11:22 seen as the are not mining the same blocks as everyone else I would guess their hashrate would not apply to the total 00:11:32 or at least most of it wouldn't 00:12:29 i wonder what the ... economics are.. of using rented HR to mine monero vs. using the same rented HR to mine another CPU coin 00:12:47 i guess it depends on how much of the attack HR is rented 00:12:59 I have two visions of what might have happened: 00:13:01 1. they are pure propaganda and don't want to do a 51% attack because CFB's head would be being hunted by Dread users (you must already know what happened with that supposed team that did the spam attack on Monero, supposedly it did), and it would also be very costly. 00:13:03 2. CFB said it would try during 08/11 (and this argument can use the first argument). 00:13:06 i bet its a decent chunk 00:13:41 what happened to the guys who spammed? 00:13:43 we would need a count of all alt blocks, that percentage is probably comparable to the percentage of missing hashrate, if I had to guess 00:14:34 by all alt blocks, I mean including the ones they hide 00:16:28 https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/1lizibf/antidarknet_team_who_spammed_monero_network_got/ 00:21:11 standart cpu VPS rental is ~100.000 $/month for 1GH -- IF available (~150 servers, Intel 8 core) IIRC, rough estimate 00:22:48 is that `100000` dollars 00:22:52 within the range of a marketing budget .... 00:24:12 cheap 1btc 00:25:10 especially if it boosts your marketcap by 200M 00:27:09 so can the top 3 or 4 pools just exclude qubic blocks or what 00:37:45 yeah, difficulty only adjusts for accepted blocks 00:38:56 So you could have w parties with 5gh, but if half of it has its blocks dropped, the network diff only adjusts for 5gh 00:39:49 maybe we should include alt chain difficulty in the diff targets, which could(?) Limit reorgs to 1 block, since you'd have to include the alt chain in your history ? 00:41:57 Problem there could be that an attacker could withhold their alt chain, include yours, but invalidating yours because you didnt include theirs. :/ 00:42:15 yeah 00:43:02 also that would just slow block production as selfish mining is a function of real hashrate not the claimed hashrate of the chain 00:46:25 the difficulty adjustment algorithm keeps blocks at 2 minute intervals on average, the global hashrate is just the real hashrate that would cause that difficulty. Selfish mining makes that last step invalid as the hashrate is not real when selfish mining as it is split between multiple chains most of the time. 00:46:30 > Last block: 1m ago 00:49:37 Excuse me for speaking in cursive, but iirc there are chains that do something similar to what i said above 00:56:44 could we do something where the deeper the reorg the more ahead the chain has to be 🤔 00:57:08 i.e. every 5 blocks the amount the other chain needs to be ahead increases by 1 or something 00:58:31 meaning if the other chain has enough PoW to maintain their lead we'll switch to not cause a net split but otherwise we'll stay on the current chain 00:59:34 meaning if the other chain has enough PoW to maintain their lead we'll switch to not cause a chain split but otherwise we'll stay on the current chain 01:04:57 I guess it is just checkpoints with extra steps, still has a liveliness requirement 01:14:37 we have liveliness, so leveraging that is an idea 01:15:43 not every node is active all the time, for all of history 01:16:52 The issue here is that you can just spam 1 block reorgs, but i guess thats harder than mining a secret chain? 01:17:27 Hyc proposed years ago a "hash of hashes" rolling checkpoint system 01:18:24 For bootstrapping, this could require sybils to circumvent. Since most of your peers should agree in the hash of the Nth block from the tip 01:22:44 I mean we have a lot of fake nodes operating now without that big of an incentive 01:24:55 would prob. need some byzantine agreement imho. Yep, fake nodes stand in the way. 01:27:17 is the mined blocks on miningpoolstats inaccurate? it looks like it isn't updating with the reorgs 01:45:38 Is it possible to cap the monero supply in the future? I know a lot of people don’t want to hear this, but if monero doesn’t increase in price and make mining monero more profitable. Monero likely wont exist in 5 years from now. 01:47:12 It ruins the calculations for the variable block size limit. So it's not a simple change to a config value somewhere 01:47:44 lack of supply cap isn't keeping price low, bitcoin currently has a higher inflation rate 01:48:08 No, yes if we depend on botnets price isn’t going anywhere 01:48:10 if you want to increase miner revenue you should increase the inflation rate not decrease it 01:49:24 Someone can mine btc without investing in hardware? 01:50:47 mining monero is never going to be profitable for the average user IMO 01:52:08 It was before randomx 01:52:36 when ASICs existed? 01:52:50 Yes even with them 01:53:43 Why do you think RX failed? 01:53:53 failed the average user* 01:53:57 At this point they need to get rid of Random X in my opinion. It didn’t really bring down centralization, because groups like SupportXMR had around 40 to 50 percent of the hash rate for years. It just making mining completely unviable. 01:54:01 Simple botnets have upper hand 01:54:13 why didn't they with cryptonight? 01:54:20 No investment easy to mine 01:54:47 different from RX? 01:55:51 They did, but gpu were profitable 01:55:59 That was randomx related reply 01:56:14 I was mining xmr when the asics arrived after which mining became unprofitable 01:56:34 yeah I fail to see how you are competing with ASICs 01:56:45 Profit reduced it wasn’t like randomx 01:57:35 I would bet you would be more unprofitable now with cryptonight than RX but we'll never know 01:59:03 I think your argument that botnets are worse than ASICs doesn't really work when you look at the profitability of popular ASIC coins vs Monero 01:59:30 obv to profit from mining you need to have some cost advantage 01:59:40 No legit miner is going to invest in mining xmr or support price when they know its going to be mined by a entity which has no cost to mine 01:59:41 Monero was sabotaged when we switched to randomx 02:01:15 okay so, 33% RandomX, 33% new CroptoNightR variant (hopefully more ASIC resistance), 33% Litecoin merge 02:02:21 They needed to get rid of Random X years ago. The only thing that might save monero now from a 51% attack from Quibic is that they have a halving next Wednesday. Qubic got 50% of the hash rate last Saturday. 02:02:38 I mean they probably didn't 02:02:46 they didn't 02:04:48 and no individual is going to mine an ASIC coin? 02:04:55 without an ASIC^ 02:09:22 Individuals don’t buy for any hardware for anymore. 02:09:23 I don’t have issue with asic if they are securing the chain, just get it developed in America if china was such a perceived danger. 02:09:37 Chinese will do cpus soon 02:09:46 What will you move to then ? 02:10:18 targeting RX by targeting all CPUs is going to be tuff 02:11:31 "hey guys look at this nice list of all the people who have bought ASICs we should go to their place and shut them down for mining Monero" 02:12:03 just target the company producing them 02:13:32 Go dual/triple pow don’t depend on botnets 02:13:33 Enough of this no investment led mining it’s only brought trouble home 02:13:35 There are no legit miners left 02:14:55 your ASIC side is still vulnerable to targeting the ASICs 02:15:29 for triple pow would I need 3 types of hardware or would it be profitable to only have 1 type? 02:17:25 > There are no legit miners left 02:17:27 that is just wrong 02:18:09 but it would be correct to say there are no average people mining bitcoin without specialist equipment 02:19:00 Yah who are these legit miners ? Someone with 10-20 machines ? 02:19:21 Which average person is mining monero ? There are average person mining bitcoin with asics 02:20:28 It would be profitable atleast one of those pow 02:20:39 It would be profitable atleast on one of those pow 02:21:37 The same people are mining Monero with their CPUs 02:21:49 profitable even if I am mining only 1/3 of the time? 02:22:15 I mine with all the CPU I got (some of them do variable load depending of the sun) 02:22:50 You are mining 24/7 02:23:14 Good for you, but you are not average 02:23:32 how do you know? 02:23:37 seems like a longer roi mining 1/3 of the time 02:24:01 Granted, main reason I mine is to keep my offgrid setup healty... If I dont mine the batteries are full at 10:30-11 am. So I actually need to purge as much electricity I can. 02:24:31 Dude runs nodes and shit a average Joe can just plug and play asic miner 02:24:37 Difficulty will adjust to those levels or price will 02:25:22 I even mine with the radeons (It use more electricity than the cpus) 02:25:26 I meant average Monero miner, how do you know the hashrate is mostly botnets? 02:25:37 can mine just one, look to tari for an example although I think they picked dumb algos 02:25:39 you would have three different independent difficulties with a target block time 6 minutes each, to keep an overall 2 minutes 02:26:03 51% just one algo gets you jack shit, you gotta get to 50% overall still 02:26:19 Same question every time, I know you guys run botnets and making money 02:26:21 Just milking it while it last 02:26:23 Good luck with your botnets 02:26:30 lol 02:26:52 Yah keep laughing 02:27:05 sounds like a wannabe ASIC farmer 02:27:07 It’s free money after all 02:27:14 I mine during heating season and a bit beyond, Cat loves it 02:27:27 not during summer 02:27:59 I mine to keep all the zombie computers warm, I hope their cats like it too 02:28:09 I do mine with the Epycs too, 24/7, with low priority to not affect other services 02:28:26 I which I could optimize ram on epyc shit 02:28:35 I don’t even need asics, go dual triple mine ; give a gpu friendly asic ; run your botnets 02:28:37 Just depending on botnets will kill xmr 02:29:03 Yah every next door kid has epycs 02:29:27 there are some very large miners which might indicate botnets 02:29:54 The point is simple. 02:29:55 You have hardware, you can mine on it... Yay 02:30:21 Dont buy hardware to mine except if you actually want to build a farm or something 02:30:35 But mine with the shit you already have 02:31:07 Last time I brought shit to mine was like 2012 or sometime 02:31:18 Yah tell that to attackers, this is just one kid from Belarus ; wait for state actors 02:31:40 The rent a shit lot of hash power 02:31:42 They pay to attack 02:32:14 To counter that you can rent shit (no, its not profitable) so they cant rent the shit you rented 02:33:17 I did rent like 10MH last weekend, of course it was not worth it, bit it was 10MH less for qubit (and not 10mh more for monero, because the rig for renting mine even when not rented) 02:33:35 state actors can take out ASICs/ build a shitton of them 02:33:38 If the FBI seriously wanted to do a 51% attack against monero. Do you really think, they would have any trouble getting rid of it. They could destroy Monero tomorrow if they really wanted to. 02:33:56 I mine 24/7 02:33:57 If the FBI seriously wanted to do a 51% attack against monero. Do you really think, they would have any trouble getting rid of it? They could destroy Monero tomorrow if they really wanted to. 02:34:03 They 3 letters people want monero to trive, they need a monero 02:34:21 Good, thanks for than 10kh/s 02:34:21 Do you have an asic? If not, why not? 02:34:25 Good, thanks for that 10kh/s 02:34:29 Youre welcome 02:34:57 ^^ well, do ya> 02:34:59 Does xmr support asic ? No, that is the reason 02:35:15 Do you mine monero? 02:35:31 Wrong answer; you're typing on your ASIC right now :P 02:35:33 You can get a cpu based antminer if they still make them. If its even profitable now. 02:35:39 I did roi, it’s not profitable to mine xmr 02:36:11 I am broken ai, running on a gpu 02:36:17 so you dont mine anything? 02:36:33 No, I don’t mine anything after randomx came 02:36:42 Why dont you go buy an asic, and sell those coins for monero? 02:37:06 And do what ? When xmr itself is not secure 02:37:26 ok, then why are you here? 02:38:04 For transactions and my old bag from 2017 02:38:40 ^ why dont you dump your bag and move to something with your desired asicpow, like arrr 02:39:13 What kind of shitcoin ? Is this how you deal with ppl who don’t like botnets ? 02:39:45 do you think massice corporations mining bitcoin is any more "fair" than botnets? 02:40:02 Average joe with a single asic might find a block every 100 years lmao 02:40:13 Obviously they are more secure than your botnets 02:40:16 Pools 02:40:53 I dont think you understand how blocks work. You arent contributing unless you mine a block 02:41:15 Your hashpower has no effect on the global difficulty if you dont produce blocks 02:41:29 And you are not securing your network with botnets which are available to rent to others for a right price 02:41:35 you can still produce a block mining on a pool 02:41:54 right, nioc, but you end up donating those 3btc 02:42:14 In exchange for 0.000001 or whatever your single asic hash is worth 02:42:35 Doesn't Nicehash allow you to rent hashpower for other cryptocurrencies 02:43:40 See the available hashrate there and their global hashrate 02:45:55 Don't you want to compare their hashrate to the combined hashrate of individual miners (both solo and pools)? 02:46:22 If you look at global hashrate, you'll include those big mining firms that are antithetical to security 02:46:57 Global 02:48:25 I see 2.2028 EH/s in "EU - West" and 3.6137 EH/s in "USA - West" for Nicehash's SHA256ASICBOOST, and 891 EH/s for global hashrate according to mempool.space, for Bitcoin 02:49:08 now check for xmr and see the % diff 02:50:08 I don't know where best to rent Monero hashrate lol...you want me to check Nicehash for that too? 02:51:03 miningrigrentals 02:51:55 MRR you get back 60% what you spend 02:52:27 Doesn’t matter to attackers 02:52:49 566.82Mh/s available, 315.43Mh/s in use, out of 5.251 GH/s total 02:54:40 so most of what is available is not being rented? 02:54:58 Don't ask me 02:55:19 6 block reorg just now 02:57:17 Wow 03:00:16 I think one of the reason they don’t is they are worried they’ll trigger a GME type event 03:02:42 And they know that if they try to kill it another one will pop up. (I’m not sure about this Monero is kinda special) 03:03:10 Monero 2.0 would have probably a pre mine 03:04:42 That’s kinda why I don’t think this qubic guy is working for any state actor, if he really was he would have definitely succeeded by now 03:06:41 Could state actors be inspired by Qubic? 03:07:07 he's been around for many years 03:07:16 (Even after Qubic is done with their thing, assuming they don't succeed, aren't we still in danger?) 03:07:36 Reorgs will be memes soon 03:07:50 Qubic was founded a year ago and the guy running it was already responsible for like 2 rug pulls. Thankfully Qubic is halving next Wednesday, so if monero holds on we should be in the clear 03:08:20 Can’t devs do something? Run more botnets? 03:08:28 What is with you and botnets 03:08:43 Well they are securing the network 03:09:03 We both know botnets don't spawn out of this air 03:09:12 We both know botnets don't spawn out of thin air 03:09:23 Sure, so devs can’t do anything 😔 03:09:45 Wedneday you say is 13/08? 03:09:49 Next Wednesday 03:09:52 it's not this wednesday 03:10:11 Okayy 03:10:51 Halving as if it’s going to change anything on that meme tokens 03:11:55 It’s a huge deal, because it reduces their miners profits by half, so if they can’t get a 51% attack before then. Why would they be able to get one after? 03:12:02 i don't know if the halving is even a factor now to be honest. seems like they have access to a lot of hashrate that they might be hiding 03:12:22 They will just pay more coins, it’s a centralised shitcoin 03:13:42 We need Serai Dex to go live, then Monero goes to 3k thanks to all the people that will able to finally swap easily from ETH/BTC to XMR 03:14:31 The main reason why Qubic is attractive. is because they pay their miners much more than the other monero pools. But if this profit is reduced then it gives less incentive for their miners to keep mining on their pool. 03:14:58 With reorgs hanging over the shoulders? 03:15:51 I know millionaries that want to get into Monero but can’t bacouse it’s either a instant swap site which can decide to freeze your money or nothing 03:16:18 They haven’t heard about reorgs 03:16:19 If Monero 10x the hashrate 10x 03:16:40 With same botnets 😂 03:16:59 tell them to use Retoswap. it works. 03:17:36 Which means you would now need a shitcoin with 2B market cap to 51% attack Monero not one with a 200m cap 03:17:44 there are swaps that don't freeze your $ 03:17:47 To hard to use 03:17:56 They cant be bothered 03:18:35 Tell them to send it to me, i'll swap for them 03:18:41 It’s gotta be retard proof 03:18:44 Wrong room for this convo 03:18:48 real millionaires have personal assistants who can be bothered. if they don't already have XMR for the safety deposit, they can also use Bisq too. 03:18:52 I am retard proof 03:19:37 The fact that monero is being threatened, by a random 200 million dollar cap shitcoin is really hurting my confidence in the coin overall. They need to find a way to boost the price of the coin and make it easier to mine 03:19:53 whose they 03:20:08 Do you think monero is rhe only chain that reorgs? 03:20:19 Its, in part, why btc has 10minute blocks 03:20:32 Nioc 03:20:36 Other chains depend on decoys 03:20:48 What? 03:21:14 Dont* depend? 03:21:19 Reorg 10+ blocks and many txs are invalid 03:21:41 MoneroChan 03:22:50 honestly i think this is just a poor design choice 03:23:33 So is depending on a botnet fondly pow alone 03:24:01 nah. Randomx > whatever youre larping about, mr non-mining ngu dude 03:25:02 I dont think you asic shillers understand that the price and hashrate are in equillibrium. Botnets leave = difficulty falls = cost to mine falls = price falls 03:25:17 Botnets arent the reason that you're not a millionaire 03:25:42 They are the reason that xmr cost's $250 to mine 1XMR 03:26:21 Bitcoin had the luck of being considered a joke until it was already to big to die, Monero does not, so it has to go bear grills mode 03:26:45 Without them, cost to mine 1xmr would be $50. I'm not defending botnets, but if you think asics solve a centralized pow issue, youre just wrong 03:27:32 It was 0.01 btc before ramdomx 03:28:02 it was also 0.001 03:28:06 did you mine with an asic 03:28:20 @Elon 03:28:42 Gpu 03:28:53 Did you profitably mine xmr when the emission was 20xmr per block 03:29:26 When is FCMP++ expected to be released? 03:29:39 I mined till randomx came into existence 03:29:41 My fcmp++ blocks are 15mb right now 03:29:55 Imho 2026 eoy 03:29:57 Software feels like its 80-90% finished 03:30:38 if all goes well, i think we could seen it by EOY 2025 03:30:59 I believe late 2025 or early 2026. 03:31:25 i've been running it for months. EOY 2025 is possible, if audits checkout and code reviews go well 03:31:54 EOY2026 is crazy work. Were not 18 months away 03:32:18 The audits seem to be going well. I saw this one that was recently completed and published. https://magicgrants.org/2025/08/05/Veridise-Gadgets-Circuit 03:32:58 yeah, theres a lot to be reviewed still. That being said, functionality is there 03:33:11 Also its pretty performant, surprisingly 03:33:16 won't be 2025, you need months lead time for the fork after it is ready 03:33:52 nioc, we're going to release something for this qubic stuff wirh 0 lead time 03:34:00 True. ASICs and latching onto another chain are the worst two moves to make. CPU optimized mining should stay as long as Monero exists. PoW + PoS is a preferable solution to introducing an algorithm that offers ASIC advantage. Not as permissionless and introduces a supply chain attack. 03:34:36 for integrations, probably only have to deal with HWWs. The rest should be plug n play with the wallet api 03:35:16 Example: tob had feather running fcmp txs already 03:36:14 So, nioc, i disagree that we _need_ months lead time. We uaed to haed fork every 6 months. We need like 1 month lead time 03:37:09 the days of 6 month HFs are long gone 03:37:11 We dont have 99 exchanges to deal with this time either. Biggest reason for lead-in would be randomxv2 03:37:38 hard disagree PoS is preferable 03:38:37 I dont really think we have to modify block production methods, really. Just rules around what we consider valid 03:38:44 If CFB and Qubic do get the majority of total network hashrate and decide to kill Monero, then we take the big fat L(oss) plain and simple. The only way I think this could've been prevented technically on Monero's side, ex-post, if Monero gets killed is that we should have implemented PoW + PoS earlier 03:38:48 Like rejecting deep reorgs and empty blocks when they shouldnt be empty 03:39:14 And i dont agree that bootstrapping is a good reason to avoid rejecting deep reorgs 03:40:00 elaborate. I don't necessarily think PoW + PoS is necessary, but if we get killed by this CFB guy and Qubic then in retrospect the only technical change that could've prevented it is PoW + PoS. But even then I don't think PoW + PoS allows us to prevent empty block or near empty block attacks 03:40:35 At this point for monero to survive it needs to grow 03:40:53 Well no dip barthman 03:41:41 Obviously if Monero had more bag holders and normie enjoyers like BTC then there would be higher price and more "honest" hashrate. That doesn't necessarily mean that hashrate would be more distributed between pools though. 03:42:31 Normies are excluded 03:43:22 I mean I don’t think monero needs to be worth 5,000 dollars a coin, but at this point it needs to be around 500 to 800 dollars per coin in the next 5 years to realistically prevent more of these 51% from being pulled off. 03:44:03 Even though i lost all my moneros, i hope this doesn’t happen. But if they kill it means that we almost won . (Rubicks cube won’t kill Monero i mean a state attack) 03:44:05 And honestly I'm not even sure that PoW + PoS would've been able to stop Qubic if we already had it deployed. He may not be able to reorg deep, but would be able to mine empty blocks. But perhaps there is a gimmicky way to still prevent that with PoW + PoS 03:45:02 The solution to empty block, in my peabrain, is simple: reject them 03:45:49 Bitcoin has empty blocks, but those are _only_ when the second block is produced before the block template is able to add txs to it 03:46:05 The tricky thing with Monero is that the more successful it becomes, the safer it becomes from these gimmicky attacks like CFB and Qubic, but the more of a target it would become for state attacks. A succeeding Monero would be more likely to garner the attention and anger of fiat print boiiiiss 03:46:12 If someone sends me an empty blocks 30 seconds after i had added a full block to my database, why should i even consider jt 03:46:40 Yeah, but then CFB could just choose to include some small number of transactions. Say 5 to 10 per block 03:46:47 He just find workaround plain and simple 03:46:52 If my txpool is 10mb and someone sends me 10 empty block, why shoukd i accept them 03:47:44 If my txpool / local template says block should be 287kb, why would i accept anything less than.. lets say 80% of that? 03:47:54 Anything to slow him down is helpful, even if he would be able to eventually find a workaround 03:48:35 Here's my take, if CFB and Qubic do get majority hashrate and start mining empty blocks for a consecutive prolonged period, then users could just boost their TX fees way up to incentivize other pools to include their TX. Basically stupid high fees like Bitcoin when they get congested haha. 03:48:49 this already happens 03:48:56 But other pools lost the blocks 03:49:08 Why do they lose the blocks? 03:49:09 Fees dont help if the good blocks get dropped 03:49:12 bottom line is the security budget needs to be higher. only way I really see to do that is merge mining or higher fees, and Idek if fees can cover it. the emission curve was simply too steep, under 1% inflation on a coin after only , what, 8 years? kinda nuts 03:49:15 Why do they get dropped 03:49:23 Because they get reorged 03:49:27 Other pools would need enough hashrate to mine blocks 03:49:44 When there is a 7 block deep reorg, there are 7 "honest" miners that lose their blocks 03:50:05 All of the txs and their fees end up back in the txpool 03:50:25 This happened to me earlier. My tx was confirmed by 2 different pools, and dropped twice 03:50:44 ofrnxmr @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: people can just add 1 tx to the block that they made to get around this rule 03:50:49 The third time it was mined, the miney got the txfee 03:50:56 how so? 03:51:06 False dichotomy. Asic friendly algo could have different outcome. 03:51:13 You make a good historical observation. But touching the emission is a no go. Price needs to go up and people need to learn about Monero. But most people don't care. Maybe they are right. Honestly if you think about it, most normies don't need Monero for anything because they have high trust in the fiat system and low threat models. 03:51:24 When I mine a block just add my own tx? 03:51:25 My txpool says blocks should be 450kb, how is a 1 tx block going to change that? 03:51:31 At this point the only thing saving monero at this point is the Qubic halving, if that wasn’t happening then they would be likely to eventually pull off the attack. Also the guy is a straight up serial scammer, so he probably will rug pull eventually. 03:51:52 Ahh I thought you just meant reject empty blocks 03:52:41 I understand, thanks for the explanation. But if people are paying like $5 or $10 fees then that could help bring more hashrate online toward the honest pools. Just has to be a juicy enough pot of fees to collect 03:53:10 nono, i mean, if my monerod would be hashing 300kb, then i shouldnt accept blocks at are much below that. Obviously nodes on the network dont have identical txpools, and not all miners create the same template (monerod vs p2pool vs xmrig), but it should be within a range 03:53:22 Still gets iffy rejecting blocks because they are too small, the tx pool is not shared between nodes, you'll open a new attack vector 03:53:47 If qubic had mined "honestly", the outcome would've been similar. The reorgs are (probably) about messing with people's perception of what's going on, and what should've happened 03:53:59 My understanding is similar to mr. boog 03:54:09 The counter from attacker would be to inflate their own pools (sending txs tk themself = 0 cost) and not share txs 03:54:56 Selfish mining does get you more rewards than you should do by normal mining but yeah most of those 7 blocks they shouldn't have had anyway 03:55:26 The difficulty would have increased to account for the extra / ophaned blocks (if they just built on top) 03:55:48 Ok, but if a bunch of normal monero users are throwing out $5+ fees that is a big incentive for honest pools and hashers. I'm not sure I can say whether or not Qubic is profit motivated or not yet. 03:56:07 We'll get to see CFB's true colors if he does indeed get majority hash 03:56:09 honest pools are _doing their best_ already 03:56:16 And losing 7 blocks to a reorg 03:56:23 The fees dont change anything 03:56:35 We are dead if that happens 03:56:40 It might be an incentive for _qubic_ to start including the txs 03:56:52 Doing their best given the current incentives. But if there are a bunch of high fee transactions in the mempool then it may incentivize new CPUs to spin up and join pools 03:57:17 that assumes qubic doesnt have another 10gh in their back pocket 03:57:54 Were approaching this issue as if qubic cant possibly have the hashrate necessary, when we should be assuming that _someone_ does (ahem, amazon etc) 03:58:01 Not necessarily. I can see multiple scenarios where it is not in CFBs interest to kill Monero. But if he does choose to kill it then the probability of him being FED/gov affiliated goes way up 03:58:28 I don’t think so, because if that was the case why didn’t he use that last Saturday when they were at like 50% hash rate? 03:58:47 Why should he? He coukd have done this last week too 03:59:08 their reported hashrate hasnt grown 03:59:14 Its been 2.5gh for over a week 03:59:48 But they, imo, must have more than that, considering their abilitt to neat 4.5gh of "honest" hashrate 03:59:54 They’re at like 35% right now 04:00:03 Monero was only 2.5gh a few months ago - globally 04:00:15 Some ppl like to see world burn, this related feels like one 04:00:25 Some ppl like to see world burn, this retard feels like one 04:01:17 I haven't heard many good proposals about what would protect Monero if someone like CIA + Amazon decided to attack. Because it is clear that they have a lot of hash power under their control. So at face value you'd need a way to stop empty blocks and reorgs. PoW + PoS stop the reorgs, but not the empty blocks or artificially low blocks.; 04:02:41 If the US government actually decides to go after monero hash rate. Then we’re done for, because only like huge cryptocurrencies like bitcoin can hope to survive an attack from a government as big as the US. 04:05:07 The risk and attack vector of CPU power has always been stipulated from Satoshi from the start. So I think it is an uncertainty that we will have to deal with for the time being, until someone can come up with an improvement on our current pure Proof of Work that IS NOT gimmicky and targeting a particular actor. But is more like a rule that can be applied to everyone participating without breaking things and negative second order consequences 04:07:07 Yes the US gov wouldn't buy ASICs that is stupid. They would do a supply chain attack or knock on the doors of mining farms in the states. ASICs in a sense aren't lying around that can be spun up into hashrate like CPUs, but the attack points of ASICs are arguably worse (supply chain attacks) and it is less open to the common folk 04:07:19 Imagine this: qubicia has 100gh at his disposal - some nsa computing, or access to idle aws, and is using 5% of that (2.5% disclosed). 04:07:54 They would just go to abc asic farm / mining pool and use them (just like going to amazon or azure) 04:08:41 amazon could, at any point, decide to mine xmr with their idle cpu resources (juat like cfb "mines xmr with idle ai resources") 04:08:46 What is even the solution here, if we somehow prevent reorgs they can still just not mine new txs 04:09:08 This looks like barely a poc of a well known attack vector 04:09:50 The thing about it is the fact that Bitcoin is so big. That it is likely impossible for any nation state to truely knock it out, so even with asics even the US government will likely have a hard time to knock it out. https://miningpoolstats.stream/bitcoin 04:10:09 if honest miners (and nodes) are rejecting their blocks, than their alt chain dies 04:10:26 Or they can keep minimg their alt chain, but nobody accepts ir 04:10:33 Yeah but how do nodes know to reject it 04:11:16 They could include fake txs that they made to make it seem like the blocks are full 04:11:44 Yeah this is my point as well. Ofrnxmr is positing a god-tier threat to the network, but hasn't really thrown in a solution yet. My point is that Satoshi's pure Proof of Work consensus might be the best that can actually be achieved and we just have to get used to living with the possibility that someone with a bunch of CPU's can throw them at Monero's network (or BTC back in the early days before people mined with GPU's) 04:12:11 If the txs have $ attached? Then they are valid, no 04:12:40 They won't be mining anyone else's txs though 04:12:49 They would be just churning funds 04:13:02 With themselves taking the fees as they are the miner 04:13:13 Yeah ^ 04:13:20 You are correct. The problem is having a non-gimmicky way of identifying and rejecting their blocks that can't be circumvented by the attacker. The devil here is in the details of implementing this without breaking things or negative second order consequences. 04:13:58 Tldr: i havent "solved" that 🫠 04:15:51 Which could arguably be worse, because theyd be adding large blocks to your db, instead of 15kb 04:16:31 I mean I'm not trying to be demeaning or discouraging, it's just that its a big problem to solve haha. I think the logical idea that would counter censorship would be honest users paying stupid high fees. Because even if Qubic creates fake transactions with inflated fees that they mine themselves, if sidelined cpu's see they can make more money because they get block reward + very high honest user fees then an economic incentive for more hashrate emerges 04:16:58 preventing deep reorgs doesnt stop an attacker from reorging 1-2 blocks at a time either 04:17:35 This solves a little current actor at known levels, but not _the_ problem 04:17:35 I think the game theory here is that if CFB gets majority hashrate and mines empty blocks then either everything goes kaboom and to zero OR people wanting to make transactions boost their fees wayyyy higher OR some combination of those two things 04:17:37 It’s just more profitable to mine Qubic right now and as such many miners will follow them until something changes 04:18:16 _the_ problem being that, no matter how high the hashrate is, it can be attacked by a state level actor 04:19:25 iirc there are hundreds of gh available on dataservers that would jump if president forced them to as some war-time act 04:19:54 Code is law. You cant hope to secure the network with feel goodisms. Need the code to function on its own 04:20:11 Well I do think it is possible to conceive of a future Monero where it is too expensive to attack from an economic or hashrate point of view. But that they would have to use outside of the network means of attacking such as hacking mining pools, targeted power outages or internet disruptions, DDOS attacks etc 04:20:13 I mean we can barely fend off Qubic for Christ sake. How are we going to fend off a nation state. Unless the price of monero goes up rapidly 04:21:09 Is the argument that the USA has virtually unlimited fiat to attack pow crypto? The obvious downside is that if word leaks they did this, USD probably tanks hard or something. I don't know if I believe this in all cases. Even with xmr there's the risk of leaks and looking weak, etc 04:21:28 no, because some large entity (like amd) would grow a military branch and start mining to combat the north korean / russian / chinese / hamas botnets 04:21:31 Theoretically if Monero's price was high enough and had accumulated enough total network hashrate then the feds would have to rely on outside of network attacks 04:22:18 Id say unlimited access to physical resources, like amazon, microsoft, amd, intel 04:22:45 Is the cost for such an attack that high? The US could spend a few million and it wouldn't impact their debt that much... 04:22:50 they dont have to pay to use these resources 04:23:07 In practice I agree, but it is theoretically possible to imagine a scenario where total hashrate is just super high and fiat is down so bad and governments are weak and can't coerce cpu manufacturers, but as you can see this thought abstraction is highly unlikely haha 04:23:12 *Iran...I don't think a Hamas botnet would be very threatening 😭 04:23:19 Yes, but the problem is a lot of people in the monero community can’t accept the reality. that we need to find a way to rapidly increase the price for monero 04:24:21 There is no way rapid way to make number go up. It has to happen naturally 04:24:22 IDF would bomb every person that has ever held xmr 04:25:34 The problem I laid isn't just the debt, it's debt+secrecy. Everyone would see that USA is literally printing money to squash crypto, which could negatively impact all exchange rates massively. It's literally telling people the fiat game is over etc. I don't know how you pull such a massive operation in such secrecy, but maybe 04:25:39 If i was secretary of state, and monero was libya, id just reorg 7200 blocks at once 04:25:49 Increase adoption maybe :) 04:26:10 Call it "operation no-nero" 04:26:52 the FCMP++ hard fork will include transaction chaining, which leads to us getting easy two-way atomic swaps with BTC, making XMR more accessible, right? 04:26:57 My current takeaway from all this is that despite Monero's amazing progress and excellent technological engineering, it is vulnerable to majority hash attacks as per Satoshi's whitepaper. I personally had grown complacent and hadn't accounted for how exposed Monero is. But that is just part of the game. Gotta live with it. 04:27:33 And i'd go on tc explaining how this undergrouns terrorist organizarion has been operating under out noses, and how i had the most wonderful opererarion and squashed this 10 year old threat out in an instant 04:27:39 How beautiful it was 04:27:49 You would think this, but the masses and normies are incredibly gullible and trusting. 04:27:51 The finest operation you'll ever see 04:27:53 Luke on Monerotopia mentioned that his Finality Layer proposal would take years, so apart from Tevador's proposal, what other thing could be implemented quickly? 04:28:06 Yes I agree, but we haven’t been doing ourselves any favors. The fact that monero basically has unlimited supply. hurts it, because with so much supply the demand is always reached. Causing no price increases to happen. A big reason why people hold onto Bitcoin is because there is a limited amount of them and that drives up the price. There needs to be an incentive to hold onto monero. 04:28:25 The supply doesnt hurt 04:28:35 We have lower supply than btc and same inflation rate 04:28:47 You mean like, less inflation than Bitcoin till something like half of this century 04:28:49 I think tevador's is the quickest short term proposal. but even then I'm not sure everyone is on board with that just yet. 04:28:51 Bitcoin inflationary for another 100 years 04:29:03 2140 04:29:14 That's better 😂 04:29:15 Use ethereum as stake, but that would kill Monero ideologically 04:29:35 And depend on some 100% premined garbage 04:30:25 This is painful to read. Bro XMR's dilution rate is so low. That's not the issue in relation to price. XMR has the best terminal inflation model of all cryptos on the market. A supply cap is a horrible engineering solution as fees are not a stable method of securing a trillion dollar network. 04:31:55 Could Monero nodes integrate some adapted version of statistical detection methods like those in (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-55348-3 ) & flag suspicious miners? 04:32:26 It is my personal belief that the people who hold BTC are ignorant of it's engineering flaws relative to a currency like Monero. There are only are maybe 5 to 10 reasons tops that a BTC holder could genuinely use to justify holding BTC over Monero. 04:33:40 Call them ignorant all you want, but the fact there is a cap on the amount of bitcoin does incentivize people to hold onto them. That just isn’t the case for monero. 04:33:42 If they can afford to be ignorant, then maybe they're doing some things right that we need...like a larger userbase? 04:37:32 Dude Monero's dilution rate is 0.8% of stock per year roughly. That's nothing. Takes years and years and years for existing stock to double or be meaningfully diluted. What BTC has a bullshit narrative that retards who don't understand math or BTC 04:37:36 Just wait until Dogecoin launches a 51% attack on it 04:37:41 halving schedule understand 04:39:12 The btc retards think that because at some way off point in the future the supply will be capped. So they think irrationally that inflation is automatically zero in the present or that they must automatically become ultra rich in future as there is a supply cap 100 years from now. It's a narrative based on false premises 04:39:41 Yeah maybe, but the actual game theory on operation no-nero leak is probably nasty. Like, I guess you'd spin all crypto as conspiracy theory from team "R" to get a good percentage to fall in line, but I don't know how you'd get the other ~35-40% to buy in completely. Kind of playing with fire, but I guess that's why I'm not a politician or beaurocrat. 04:40:20 yeah but the coin is 5 years younger 04:40:38 anyway PoW only really ever guaranteed that attacks would be economically disincentivized 04:40:53 the idiots in the whitemarket and media talk about btc. It's been blasted on mainstream media long enough that people have bought into it even if only in small amounts. Monero will never be talked about by the silly media and whitemarket fools. Because they are scared of a such an effective tool 04:41:05 Yes, but new monero will always be mined and that just isn’t the case for Bitcoin. I actually agree with you that monero is a better coin than Bitcoin in terms of utility, but oftentimes utility doesn’t determine price. 04:42:08 exactly this is my current take on the whole situation. We are being reminded of the risks and limitations and caveats that Satoshi stated in the whitepaper. Does it suck that pure PoW isn't bulletproof to all attacks? Yes. But is it the best we seem to have at the moment. Yes, but the PoW + PoS idea does seem to have some merit 04:43:43 Correct. But the dilution via mining is just rain droplets landing in the ocean. The issue isn't supply dilution of either BTC or Monero, it is related to demand. The supply issue is only relevant to btc because they don't have a perpetual emission 04:44:02 to properly and steadily incentivize miners 04:44:45 The scarcity of an asset/commodity does give it any more value if it’s the only good property 04:45:05 Plus like if one crypto fanboy catches wind, leak Chances go way up. You'd need to identify like minded people for operation no-nero, or people that blindly trust everything national security. Hmm dunno, still theoretical either way 04:47:29 People determine the value of things and people value the fact there is only going to be a limited number of bitcoin that can be created and as such people hold onto bitcoin far more than monero. 04:48:30 https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE?si=NNVOP9PJ7CpA4oV0 04:49:02 True, but that’s been the case since the down of time 04:50:14 True, but that’s been the case since the dawn of time 04:50:25 I hope one day they’ll stop, I’m delusional 04:54:24 Should asics be allowed to mine monero again? 04:54:53 merge mine, yes 04:55:12 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/FdkUYyYHIvJaAkkKbhDsKHgz 04:55:20 Did they really reach 51% ? 04:55:38 That red line is at 25% or something 04:55:45 ok 34%?? something like that 04:56:07 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/hFudCUEdpvtUjuAkUuvagWxo 04:56:07 No they’re at 37% 04:56:22 Okay thank you 04:56:37 before cubic unknown was 5-10% 04:56:44 not all qubit is unknow, some unknows are legit too 04:56:59 so it's like 30% yeah 04:57:29 I assumed 2% was like solo miners, because that was around the unknown rate before Qubic stopped publishing 04:59:54 The unknown rate reached 51% last Saturday. They seem to pull all their resources on the weekends 05:01:18 Afaik they never actually reached 51% (Qubic). But yes, they push more during the weekends. So far they tried many things they could try to do (with less than 51%) 05:02:00 I know for a fact they buy all hashrate they can rent during the weekend (all the one that is not overpriced that is) 05:02:00 so they also spend a lot on that project 05:02:42 98% if the money in bitcoin is from short term. Not some long term hodl microstrategy 05:02:42 The unknown reached 51% last Saturday. Who knows the real Qubic amount, they reached. But they’re a threat and I felt like a lot of people in the community underestimated them. 05:02:58 It costs $ to mine btc. Asics cost $ to manfacture 05:03:04 Its a pyramid scheme 05:04:04 Zero cost to mine xmr, it’s magic money 05:04:11 How you doing guys 05:04:22 Doing good 05:04:33 except it costs me 240$ to mine 1xmr 05:05:05 Sorry for your loss 05:05:07 Yeah it’s not very profitable to mine monero compared to many other coins. 05:05:30 It’s not profitable for ppl paying for hw and power 05:05:47 0 extra cost to mine XMR if you use the hardware you got (and did not buy extra for mining). And have free electricity. 05:05:47 Nothing really free 05:05:59 And well, it take a lot of hardware to mine "1" XMR 05:06:09 except if you solo mine and get lucky 05:06:14 What evidence do you have? How do you know that they buy hashrate? 05:06:37 the miningrigrentals etc get bought up on weekends 05:07:00 Does he have a source for this information? 05:07:10 Because I brought hashrate to counter them. 05:07:11 ANd looking at the stat I see two possibility 05:07:13 The monero community did rent it all during the weekend 05:07:15 Or Qubic rented everything that was not already rented 05:08:10 I mean many people already rented hashrate before Qubic I believe 05:08:15 Plot twist: qubic if the one offering hashpower to rent 05:08:17 Rented Hash rate went from like 20Mh/s to 400Mh/s or something like that in less than one day 05:08:37 that was only one rent location, and the left over for rent was the overpriced shit no one want 05:10:13 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/hgAKYcxWXPltTQXXBkFqFtFU 05:10:15 It seems like qubic is pulling back a little. Their hashrate dropped 5% 05:10:43 When there halving again? Wednesday? 05:10:49 Number should go down 05:11:27 20th 05:11:39 It’s next Wednesday 05:11:41 Miningrigrentals doesnt always have the chart correct due to reorgs 05:11:51 Probably actually whenever they say so 05:12:09 True, but it’s the best we have currently 05:12:26 I don't think we are out of the woods entirely with Qubic until the price of Qubic dumps or CFB rugs. Which both could happen at the same time haha 05:12:30 er, i meant to say miningpoolstats 05:12:52 I dont think were out of the woods at at all 05:12:53 Even after their next halving I wouldn't say we are entirely out of the woods 05:12:57 Oh definitely not. This is a small w 05:12:59 Were 5 feet into the rainforest 05:13:10 Looking at the trees and not seeing the forest 05:13:39 they need price to increase from where its at in order to maintain profitability in mining 05:13:51 if price stays relatively the same past the 20th mining wont be nearly as profitable 05:14:28 lets dump it 05:15:38 The price of qubic fluctuates wildly, so it’s hard to say if it will lead to a price increase or not 05:15:59 i meant lets dump xmr price back to 150 05:16:23 so ofrnxmr can mine 1xmr for 150 05:17:13 The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that breaking Pool mining is a bad idea. By retaining Pool mining as is, it allows people to coordinate against attackers more easily 05:18:26 Could be, but monero hashrate was pretty centralized by supportxmr for years before qubic 05:18:29 Hey guys, have we looked into checkpointing? 05:19:10 I also know p2pool has it's own relay system that allows it to send out blocks as fast as empty blocks, is there a way we can encourage pools to set that for themselves? 05:19:19 We have checkpointing, but not dynamic 05:19:55 Nodes wont reorg beyond the latest release. We also have (unused) dns checkpointing 05:20:22 Yes, but taking away pool mining is worse than keeping it. Just because hashrate was centralized in the past doesn't necessarily mean that is the fault of keeping the pool incentive scheme as is. It's more telling about people's or botnet's complacency in pointing to minemxr and supporxmr. 05:20:23 P2pool doesnt send out as fast as empty blocks 05:20:43 ah gotcha, sech1 was telling me they did. 05:20:49 P2pool sends out from many nodes at once 05:21:01 Like something similar to fibre from bitcoin back in '15 05:21:22 But it still takes longer to propagate a 300kb block than an 14kb one 05:21:55 All I’m saying is that monero has had trouble with centralized mining for quite a while. In fact if qubic just stayed in the 20 to 30 percent range. The hashrate would be more decentralized than it has been for a long time 05:22:13 There are actually second order effects that may limit how much hashrate centralizes in a big pool. By pointing toward the biggest pool you may gain in the short term, but increase the risk at the margin of the pool admin being able to perform an attack. Which could destroy one's future earnings 05:22:31 yes it would be more decentralized if qubic was not a malicious pool 05:22:38 if they mined honestly there wouldnt be much of an issue 05:22:57 but they are constantly doing annoying things on chain 05:23:06 but it is malicious, they are doing things what a normal pool doesnt 05:23:14 thats what im saying 05:23:33 What if someone just made the same exact thing but as a token like what 0xbitcoin was, but to help 05:23:55 really, i don't know if these other pool operators are anon or what, but i think its time to consider the top 4-5 pools excluding qubic blocks 05:23:59 Has there been discussions of allowing back asic mining? 05:24:37 no, botnet operators ask "do you have proof of botnets" 05:25:11 you have a single pool doing selfish mining likely lowering profit for all other pools, why not just get the top 4 or 5 pools which is probably 60% of the hash rate, and just exclude any qubic pool blocks 05:25:30 the other short term option is vassal state under eth which would take a couple weeks 05:25:34 to code out 05:28:00 Qubic mining is like 3 times more profitable than just mining in the other pools. So it’s just a easy choice for miners to mine with them. 05:28:36 its not an easy choice lol 05:28:46 because youre contributing to crashing xmr price 05:28:49 and attacking the network 05:29:10 It is if you only care about money, which drives a lot of miners. 05:29:37 they dont pay in xmr, their pubic token has enough liquidity ? 05:30:10 lol qtards have been using this logic for weeks now, that miners only care about money and they will all switch 05:30:11 Yeah I believe like 200 trillion 05:30:13 they haven't switched 05:30:52 its a shit coin, lots of people have numerous logical reasons not to mine qubic beyond just they can generate more profit in the short term 05:30:59 I get what you’re trying to say, but it’s just economics man. People care about money and that want overrides anything else 05:31:05 its not just economics 05:31:09 go back to qubic discord 05:31:18 liqudity to sell those mined coins 05:31:26 theres the liquidity 05:31:31 somebody gave a good example the other day 05:31:59 you can make bad choices to generate higher profit in the short term, such as not paying your home fire insurance, now you have extra money from not paying, all is good until your house burns down 05:32:29 I mean I don’t mine with qubic. But I would be lying if I didn’t know why people do 05:32:34 what if its not your house and you are just passing by ? 05:33:07 can you tell them to unban me from the qubic discord? 05:33:22 i can tell you guys are like french qubic users or something 05:33:45 'french' 05:34:10 I mean I don’t have any qubic and I hate them just as much as you. 05:35:07 you got it buddy 05:37:03 Do you believe that the diminishing of the dark web has lowered the demand for monero? 05:37:48 New heads grow 05:37:52 It is diminishing? 05:38:03 one market down, two new markets 05:38:29 Vacuum always get filled except if what around the vaccum is vaccum 05:38:42 Yes i don’t think it’s as big as it was. New markets do pop up, but it seems at a slower rate than it was in the past. 05:39:03 They will need privacy coin on streets soon 05:39:32 Only if xmr survives by that time 🤣 05:39:37 People who buy drugs on the street mostly use cashapp as dumb as that sounds 05:39:49 🔜 05:40:54 Any high quality write-ups on the q*bic situation anyone can share? 05:41:07 They’re at 30% now down from 40% 05:43:56 But if you want to know what’s happening. We’re hoping that qubic just rug pulls or their halving next Wednesday hits them hard and they aren’t able to recover 05:45:19 isn't it easier for botnet operators when it's not around asic mining? 05:46:22 Are they burning cash by renting hashrate or is it strictly incentives using their vaporware token for mining in their pool 05:46:54 Could be, but we just don’t really know right now 05:47:02 It’s over 05:47:09 lol 05:47:21 NO BLACKPILLING 05:47:36 help 05:47:58 Damn monero down 3% in price. 05:48:16 damn 3%... what ever will I do... 05:48:24 I am not, wait for confirmed txs being rollbacked and havoc 05:49:13 How about down 15% from last month 05:49:33 many exchages has stop depositig monero.. 05:49:37 yeah i saw some exchanges are disabling deposits because of reorgs, is that true? 05:49:42 That’s tiny, going back to 150 sounds good 05:50:02 Or maybe 40s 05:50:05 150 mean more easy to attack us ... 05:50:08 its a circle 05:50:25 It is easy with botnets anyways 05:50:33 If you want to make it impossible for you to make transactions then sure let’s drop the price to 150 05:50:49 kinda fuck up 05:50:53 It will drop there once it’s impossible to transact 05:51:06 It would go down to zero basically 05:51:15 price talk -> monero-markets 05:51:35 Price matters and we’re learning that the hard way 05:51:47 Price = security ? Doesn’t it cost same to mine 1 xmr ? 05:51:55 at this point I just hope a bilionaire with humanitarian conscience help us.. 05:52:18 Humanitarians don’t become billionaires 05:52:23 ahah I know 05:52:25 kinda fuck 05:52:26 This is research lounge, not whine therapy 05:52:33 sorry 05:52:51 Well you said it costs xyz to mine xmr , not me 05:53:10 Then you said without botnets price will go to xy 05:53:43 Are you talking about something i said, sonewhere else, days ago? 05:53:47 Is your priority price or chain integrity? 05:53:58 How would the FCMP++ fair against a mop decoder attack? 05:54:02 A few hours ago 05:57:02 isnt chain integrity somewhat correlated to price ? PoW is thermodinamycally link through economic 05:57:49 Kind of the price of monero dropped once a orphan block was found a couple days ago I believe 05:58:23 Not really, price can be xyz but if botnets go and mine on a malicious node it’s not secure 05:59:34 Orphan blocks are normal, intentionally doing it isn’t 05:59:36 I meanif price is xyz then it cost xyz to attack network 06:02:45 Will get cheaper 06:03:08 With randomx 06:03:09 Yeah they’re likely trying to force orphan blocks and because 5 were found it caused a panic sell 06:04:00 MRL tool to show this with nice gui helped price too 🤣 06:04:26 MRL tool to show this with nice ui helped price too 🤣 06:05:07 Looking forward to more tools to show weakness of monero, so it gets cheaper to mine 1xmr 06:05:26 Solutions can come later 06:06:02 Will if that’s your wish then the Monero couldn’t be sent anywhere, because they would’ve gotten to 51% already 06:07:23 Is FCMP immune to MAP decoder attacks 06:26:29 ofrnxmr: 06:27:11 I have no idea 🫡 06:28:53 But if chain isn’t stable secure, fcmp is useless 06:29:22 Because if you don’t know a decoder attack reduces the ring signatures from 16 to 4. The way to get around this is to have an intermediate wallet address then send to a final address. This reduces the the map decoder attack chances from 23% to 5% 06:31:07 Come someone explain if the 51% attack has been successful, and if so what does that mean for XMR? 06:31:24 No they haven’t succeeded yet they’re at like 20% 06:33:17 https://moneroconsensus.info/ 06:37:48 many exchange stop depositing xmr because empty block still worrying, even if 51% attack not succesfful what is this kind of attack then ? 06:38:36 That’s unfortunate, but we must endure and hold on for now. There’s not much we can do about it 06:39:01 copy, do we have a name for this kind of malicious activities ? 06:39:16 never heard anything like that 06:39:26 What does the attack even do? Have the compromised the security/anonymity of monero or are they just slowing down the confirmation time? 06:39:37 It's not quite a 51% attack yet. Getting 51 out of a set of 100 blocks is not a 51% attack by itself, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if some top mining pool has done that in the past already. There has been some effects from the attack: Transactions have been delayed, Monero's price has dropped somewhat, and reportedly some exchanges are delaying or halting deposits. Qubic's main 06:39:37 threat at this point is still mainly creating misinformation, fear, and panic. 06:40:18 If it can be 51% attacked xmr transactions are not trusted/final 06:40:20 copy, but delaying block, and creating empty one is kind of an attack no ? 06:40:29 its so weird 06:40:58 Are the exchanges not accepting monero, because they believe monero transactions would be stopped if they succeed? 06:42:33 MEXC just stop without information, SafeTrade said: deposit disable: monero is in maintenance pending the outcome of o-chain events currently in the news this weeks 06:42:56 Mexc does this all the time 06:43:00 Idk about kucoin 06:43:13 Yes, they don’t want to mess with txs which may not be final 06:43:15 It’s so over 06:43:23 Mexc recentlt had closed for weeks 06:43:27 I mean its def temporary lol 06:43:33 Elon stfu with your trolling 06:43:37 Deposits ? 06:43:38 Lol 06:43:43 yes deposit 06:43:55 Okay 👍 06:43:57 51% attack only has the ability to censor transactions and cause double-spends. **Privacy is unaffected**. But Qubic hasn't actually pulled off a 51% attack, despite their claims. A 51% attack implies full control of what transactions are confirmed, meaning the ability to fully censor any transaction. That has not occurred. They mined 51 out of 100 blocks by chance, which has a ch 06:43:59 ance of occurring when you only have 30% hashrate, but they haven't even managed to cause a 10 block reorg yet. There are other attacks that can be pulled off with <50% hashrate. 06:44:01 For weeks ? 06:44:05 This is bad, if we can’t trade monero then the price of monero will be lower making it easier for them to attack monero 06:44:30 Trading has stopped ? 06:44:48 they get 2 time with 10 block last 24 hours 06:44:56 from the info I got 06:45:10 Idk it’s being reported that some exchanges have stopped accepting monero for the time being 06:45:22 Since Qubic doesn't have 51% hashrate, it is still safe to transact Monero, you just have to wait for more confirmations. 06:45:42 im not worried about xmr but reputation damage here 06:45:46 Where is this info ? 06:45:58 MO and official xmr discord 06:46:13 people has share screen about 10 block in a row two different time 06:46:17 Yes thankfully but the fact exchanges aren’t accepting monero right now is hurting us 06:46:28 What’s MO ? Discord is just garbage speculation 06:46:40 Monero ocean pool discord 06:46:50 Same discord 06:47:34 Wait for MRL UI website to announce it has been 51% attacked 06:47:54 CFB has announce 51% attack official and waiting for peer review 06:47:59 Idk 06:48:06 can he lie that much Lol ? 06:48:19 I know pie chart doesnt show this at all. 06:48:26 Rucknium: can you confirm 51% attack? 06:48:29 What’s the solution to the attack? 06:48:45 is this even real is the real question id say x) 06:48:48 I don’t listen to gays 06:48:49 Check the view key 06:49:19 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/uTjnasCSYMuyIAEyYzSqttUQ 06:51:19 https://xcancel.com/c___f___b/status/1955158154213220492#m 06:51:59 proof of useful work (for ai) was announced to get some general liquidity for a unique token called qubic. Then the founders released software that performs as a single monero pool that receives xmr for the operators but pays out in this unique token to the users. The xmr received by the qubic operator can pay rented hash rate (and profit) while users get paid out via qubic token inflation. The more "real" users take this deal, the more hash rental or profits occur for the qubic operators. It continues as long as there are people willing to pay real electricity costs in exchange for something riskier than btc at its origin - qubics claimed features haven't been released via code or whitepaper and mining monero as a centralized pool doesn't prove the ai cla ims either. 06:52:57 If they had hit 51% of hash power, they'd be able to immediately publish blocks _and_ remain the sole miner. Unless that's happening... 06:53:35 Theyre not immediately publishing 06:53:41 And its still in bursts 06:54:01 (I wouldn't generally say a 51% adversary should prove it, but they're already orphaning blocks sooooo) 06:54:23 “In the meanwhile #Monero team is polishing details of their 51% attack protection” which team ? 06:55:01 he's speaking like @Monero on twitter 06:55:15 Are they working with monero classic team ? 06:55:31 That's probably the GH issue I made? They make it seem like we have a board and a CEO they're negotiating a buy out with. 06:57:00 Is anyone from MRL in touch with them ? 06:57:45 I haven't heard anything like that 06:58:52 Listening to the monerotopia episode on it now, thx for being proactive on this Luke 06:59:07 Is it confirmed? 06:59:24 The percentage of blocks they have should exceed their percentage of hash power due to selfish mining FWIW 07:00:02 sgp_ ? 07:00:19 Unless Qubic mines an outsized majority of blocks, no, it isn't. 07:00:29 A 51% attack? Nah. A 51% attack would mean excluding other miners entirely, for hours or days at a time. Getting 51 blocks out of 100 is not a 51% attack. 07:00:49 At least, according to Qubic's stated goals, which are to exclude other miners. 07:00:51 I'd ask Rucknium: for what percent of blocks a selfish mining 49% adversary can obtain. 07:01:12 Is that from their website? 07:01:25 twitter 07:01:38 The answer is probably so high, that the only way to know for certain if they have 51% is if they actually censor everyone else. 07:01:49 *I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is so high 07:02:04 Qubic stated that they want miners to know that mining on other pools is useless, becauae they will be wasting $ ans lost their blocks 07:02:19 Qubic stated that they want miners to know that mining on other pools is useless, becauae they will be wasting $ and lose their blocks 07:02:33 Where did they get the statistics from? The charts I saw indicated they weren’t even close to a 51% attack 07:03:06 By chance they got 51 blocks out of a set of 100 consecutive blocks and called it a 51% attack. 07:03:16 They mined 9/10 blocks during reorgs 07:04:41 [@kayabanerve:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@kayabanerve:matrix.org) , to be able to consistently mine blocks at the same speed as the rest of the chain, would imply having at least as much hr, no? 07:05:18 Id they are able to produce blocks (even selfishly) every 2mins, theyd have to have ~same hashrate at the network 07:05:40 No, because they're orphaning blocks. 07:06:11 On their own secret chain, they produce more blocks than the main chain (like 7 vs 6) 07:06:13 If we're producing blocks twice every two minutes, the difficulty should be double what it actually is. 07:06:25 orphans dont add to the difficulty 07:06:36 ... which I just said? 07:06:46 Yes but the question is can they maintain a longer chain 07:06:52 So it’s confirmed 07:07:24 Not if they can mine a block at roughly the same speed, not if they can maintain a blockchain that's a few blocks longer, not if they're mining 51% of blocks 07:07:36 None of that actually _proves_ they have 51% of hash power. 07:08:10 Just like with gambling, they are going to "get lucky" sometimes with long strings of blocks, that doesn't prove they have 50% of hashrate. 07:08:11 We'd have to see a majority of blocks go to Qubic _without orphaning_ OR their censoring of every other miner, proving they can independently produce a chain with the most work 07:08:47 Right now, we have some amount of blocks go to Qubic _with orphaning_, so the percentage of blocks will exceed their percentage of hash power (assuming profitable selfish mining) 07:09:27 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/rMISYYXNwgPSsDhdPJJccIFb 07:09:27 Because what I’m seeing they have around 23% hash power. Why is the chart off by that much 07:10:54 It shows higher during their active times 07:12:26 Even their own website they control shows they have 45% 07:12:27 https://explorer.jetskipool.ai/xmr-tracker 07:13:22 So they claimed 51% an hour ago and have already turned 60% of their hash power off, but are leaving 40% online? 07:13:45 (Well, sorry, their historical blocks would trickle out) 07:14:22 Oh ok. But that website is actually controlled by them 07:14:46 Uhhhh their site is blatantly wrong? 07:14:58 It claims they have 2.5 and the network is 5. 07:15:02 The chart I showed was from a independent source 07:15:18 I'm counting ~4.5 *across known mining pools*. 07:15:33 If Qubic had 2.5, the network total would be ~7 and they'd only have ~30%? 07:15:52 That’s much closer to the graph I showed 07:17:07 Can someone clarify for my where my mistake is, or if their 'percentage of the network' isn't including themselves in the network? 07:17:22 Yeah, that would notably explain the miningpools graph. 07:17:31 Because if you look at independent sources they don’t have close to the that level of hash power 07:17:55 Because else, even if their site claims they have 51%, that's only in comparison to the existing hash power and they'd still need to double their own hash to actually have 51%. 07:18:05 Also cc ofrnxmr who may have an idea 07:18:39 Wait really so it would basically be 25% because you’re cutting the hash rate in half 07:18:41 i hypothesized that they might be submitting hashed to known pools, then selfish mining on top of them 07:19:18 Except then they wouldn't valid pool shares, because the pool shares wouldn't be for the selfishly mined blocks? 07:19:30 *wouldn't have valid pool shares 07:19:40 They'd have to EITHER mine a secret chain or the pool's. 07:20:56 The original ones are valid, but could be switching to selfishmining after finding a pool block. Only reason i say this is because the numbers dont add up unless their own hashrate is included in known pools (or they are lying) 07:22:14 I can agree on the numbers not adding up lol, that's pretty obvious 07:22:28 They’re likely lying. Independent sources debunk their math and the website they showed is controlled by them 07:23:01 For the purposes of their marketing campaign, does it matter if they're lying? 07:23:19 No, but it matters whether or not they did achieve it or not 07:23:27 For the purposes of our chain's security, obviously, there's a difference, but the annoying fact is whatever they claim will bolster their claims. 07:25:43 it shows 50.2% now. Their math adds up, if done dishonestly 07:26:22 "The node reports 4.97gh. Their pool reports 2.5gh. Therefore, we have 50.2%" 07:26:39 how tf we have 2.5ghs 07:26:55 xmr hashrte has been at 5ghs pretty much stbale without shit 07:27:03 qshit* 07:27:11 This is what I was trying to highlight about orphaned blocks though. 07:27:24 The 5gh doesnt include orphans - only including winning blocks 07:27:26 Yeah 07:27:30 Orphaned blocks don't increase the difficulty as they *should* and the estimated hash rate is based off the difficulty. 07:27:50 I'm glad we agree 07:28:18 So they may have 51% of the estimated hash rate but the real hash rate should be much higher, and no, they don't have 51% of that 07:28:53 It's only if they had 51% of the actual rate that they could indefinitely mine a chain with the most work, alone 07:29:03 They also only mine sporatically, so that also keeps the net diff low 07:29:06 How do we even know that chart is legit 07:29:30 So the network is still under attack, and still subject to longer re-orgs, but it isn't captured. 07:31:10 Will be fun to see 10+ block reorgs for actual impact 07:31:11 so: good idea to include orphans in target diff? It would have to be reactive though, i assume, since one side might not be aware of the alt chain until after it is mined 07:33:50 I mean, we can't 07:34:09 By definition, they aren't in consensus 07:37:13 Qubic claimed to have 51% like 10 hours ago on that sight, but strange other sources collaborate what they say if it’s true 07:37:55 they paid 500$ an hour deshe known kaspa developper to check it out, everything so weird 07:38:14 might be just PR campaign 07:38:19 We'd need an adjusted difficulty calculated with consideration to orphaned blocks to estimate the actual hash rate at this point. 07:38:22 which site? Miningpoolstats or the ai site? 07:38:53 Any analysis from the on-chain data alone isn't sufficient since they've forcibly excluded on-chain data when lucky enough to be able to do so. 07:38:57 Mining pool reports they only have 27% hash 07:39:53 The statistics where they said they got a 51% attack is from a website they control 07:40:41 Reminder https://explorer.jetskipool.ai/xmr-tracker is controlled and affiliated with qubic 07:41:01 is miningpoolstats even trustable? 07:41:04 is miningpoolstats even trustable right now? 07:41:10 I have seen a couple 7-block reorgs and a bunch of smaller ones, that's bad enough already, not surprising exchanges are closing xmr 07:43:18 Did you see it on moneroconsensus ? 07:46:42 I have seen it on my node 07:46:54 Which exchanges have closed ? 07:47:32 2025-08-12 06:40:02.062 [P2P6] INFO global src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp:2099 ###### REORGANIZE on height: 3475995 of 3476000 with cum_difficulty 496259719462956792 07:47:39 2025-08-12 06:40:02.476 [P2P6] INFO global src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp:1217 REORGANIZE SUCCESS! on height: 3475995, new blockchain size: 3476002 07:48:59 btw, 8% orphaned blocks 07:49:20 And you trust a website that’s operated and controlled by Qubic? Their website shows a 51% attack, but that website has been known to lie 07:50:39 FWIW, I'm solely saying there isn't sufficient evidence to say Qubic has 51% at this time. I'm not saying they don't have a problematic amount of hash power, aren't degrading the chain, etc. 07:53:41 Shall I make a CCS for a finality layer? /s but not /s 07:54:14 Pos ? Or pow? 07:54:37 Well, there isn't such a thing as a PoW finality layer 07:54:43 So PoS 07:55:05 It'd stop deep re-orgs and potentially cement honest blocks before they can be re-org'd out 07:55:21 How does bch do theirs? 07:55:30 Without HF ? 07:55:37 And is this like firo's chainlocks 07:55:40 (Selfish mining would face the risk of having the honest chain cemented before the selfish miner decides to broadcast) 07:55:55 Even if they’re lying this has been bad and even the claim that monero has had a 51% attack hurts us. 07:56:02 I don't believe BCH has a finality layer. 07:56:37 I 51% attacked bitcoin yesterday 07:56:39 I heard the BCH fork eCash does, and while I don't immediately know how they select validators, their methodology is inapplicable. 07:56:56 they just dont allow reorgs beyond (configurable, but default) 10 blocks 07:57:07 ofrnxmr: Those are insecure and inapplicable here. 07:57:17 But otherwise yes. 07:57:54 *they're insecure as per the parameters seem within Dash, 20% of nodes can cause finalizations to fail. 07:58:24 I doubt devs could make a finality layer functional within the time frame needed for the current issue 07:58:42 the real question is do we vassal onto eth as a temp fix until a more permanent one can be made 07:58:59 Is it even confirmed that they succeeded or not 07:59:07 define succeeded 07:59:22 They actually got to 51% 07:59:29 actually, short answer is no, they haven't. their stated goals were to exclude all other pools and take all mining rewards 07:59:52 theyve disrupted the network and caused reorgs that haven't happened before 08:00:28 They probably don't have 51% and there's insufficient evidence for that. 08:00:42 If by success, you mean "did they achieve 51% hashrate?", the answer is still very likely no. 08:01:13 I don't believe even with their selfish mining they've achieved 51% of blocks over a day 08:01:20 They say they have 51%, but because blocks are getting orphaned a lot of hashrate calculations are off, which makes it easier for them to cook the numbers to make it seem like they won. 08:01:21 maybe on shorter time scales i'm not 100% sure 08:01:39 if anything, it would be the CIA/NSA :P 08:01:48 again though, their stated goals were to orphan all other blocks that weren't from their own pool 08:02:01 they said 51% was needed for that, then said they could do it with less than 51% 08:02:02 Mining pool stats vs their website have widely different numbers, so if they’re telling the truth why is the data from the independent source so widely off 08:02:10 other mining pools are still getting blocks 08:02:31 Of course, if they fail to do that, just watch, they'll try to say that their actual goals were something else all along. 08:02:51 you can get deeper reorgs than your share of the network hash by just being lucky 08:03:11 If the numbers are off maybe they aren't telling the truth. 08:03:18 The premise of that question is odd. 08:03:41 they are definitely more like an unreliable narrator in the whole situation 08:03:53 maybe some things they report or say are accurate, or half true, or some are just lies 08:03:58 Well I question their statistics that website https://explorer.jetskipool.ai/xmr-tracker is controlled by qubic 08:04:16 lies exaggeration stuff meant for marketing to attract more buyers to their coin 08:05:20 So that’s why I question their numbers, because if they’re telling actually pulled it off why isn’t it showing on the other pool websites 08:05:55 If two sources of information disagree then by definition one of the sources is wrong. It's up to you to figure out which one is the incorrect one. 08:06:15 I believe that website incorrectly calculates the pool share % 08:06:17 I take the independent source over the qubic one 08:06:40 because it is taking the monero network hash rate reported on other websites, and does add the qubic pool hashrate into it when calculating the pool share % 08:07:00 as in it is calculating pool share % without accounting for the increase in hashrate that their own pool adds to the network 08:07:11 or only partly accounting for it 08:07:24 doesn't* 08:07:28 Yeah. I'm not saying that the one site intentionally made up numbers, it could be error as jpc4r says or they could be doing it on purpose, or who knows? Maybe the independent sources are lying. /s 08:07:45 Well he had it correctly showing at one point 08:07:49 a few days ago 08:07:52 then he changed it back 08:07:57 so it would show higher pool % 08:08:06 so I would lean towards intentionally misleading to make it look better 08:08:09 Ah that makes sense because I actually saw that happen on that website. 08:08:16 mining poold add their own information to the blocks that they produce, voluntarily. miningpoolstats picks up on that and shows what it reads 08:09:01 Qubic doesnt add their info, so it shows as "unknown". The blocks produced by unknown miners, is the % you see there 08:09:06 I think they are at about 35% of the network 08:09:08 rough estimate 08:09:21 sech counted up all the blocks in a marathon I believe and it was 35% 08:09:53 Yes but even if include all the unknown it still works out nowhere close qubic is saying 08:09:54 Those numberc can be wrong, because miningpoolstats might not replace pool A's original block with pool B's reorged block 08:10:15 No hes able to check which blocks their pools are actually mining 08:10:22 not just counting unknown 08:10:23 Qubics 2.4gh claim isnt consistent, but is likely real 08:10:59 Meaning, they dont mine ar 2.4gh for 24hrs 08:12:07 Qubic's plan is to use the selfish mining results as a way to lie about having 51%, then threaten to orphan other pools and convince miners to join them instead. That way they can actually accumulate the necessary hashpower for a 51% attack. 08:12:46 It doesn't matter that they're lying, what matters is whether people believe them 08:13:11 I mean other pools are still getting blocks 08:14:15 With 35% hashrate they can definitely cause disruption, orphan blocks, delay transactions, and do selfish mining, but it's not a 51% attack. 51% attack means complete control over what blocks and transactions make it into the chain. Their stated goal is to prevent other pools from mining at all, and the only way to do that requires 51% hashrate. Of course, their actual goal appear 08:14:17 s to be to cause FUD and convince miners to switch. 08:14:47 that and so they can claim to their users victory or whatever else 08:14:59 Or to convince us to do something 08:15:18 this 08:15:29 Yes they did get around 40% according mining pool stats, so that should be enough to cause disruption 08:15:32 I suspect they try to force us to switch pos or something 08:15:44 Imagine if it wasnt some twitter coice, but we were being silently attacked by some shadow 08:15:54 Voice* 08:15:58 well they do need miners to switch to actually start orphaning all other blocks 08:16:00 that is true 08:16:01 Yes, their entire plan is to just deceive miners into thinking they're able to 51% attack, when they're not 08:16:39 Their entire plan could just be that they are xmr bulls and want us to fix this before someone else does it 08:17:00 Oh please stop it 08:17:09 ? 08:17:31 Do you think an attacker has to tell us the time and date that they will attack? 08:17:45 The only source claiming they were able to achieve a 51% attack is them and nobody else 08:18:10 definitely not xmr bulls 08:18:18 I know the odds of this are probably less likely than convincing Bitcoin to switch to POS, but would doubling the block reward (requiring a hard fork) provide sufficient incentive to increase the network hashrate? 08:18:27 why mine xmr if not xmr bull 08:18:35 they just dump the xmr anyways 08:18:35 Were not changing the emission 08:18:49 no I don't think doubling the block reward would do anything 08:19:02 Yeah, I know, the emission isn't going to change. 08:19:02 before tail emission its not like people were rushing to mine xmr anyways 08:19:08 Doubling the block rewars just doubles the amount of xmr that miners sell 08:19:22 I think randomx is almost by design meant to be either just slightly profitable, or actually unprofitable for most 08:19:28 +1 jp 08:19:49 (re tail emission) 08:20:39 ppl calling for dbl of block rewards, are same ppl saying inflation is bad. Why dont we eliminate block rewards and have 0 inflation? /s 08:21:13 I can get behind that. Making mining less profitable means that only people actually interested in the coin mine, meaning more centralization. Nano did that with consensus nodes: there's no network reward for operating one, and so far it seems to have done a good job of discouraging centralization. 08:21:15 Raise tx fees to 0.1xmr per kb 08:21:20 doing good PR for fcmp++ might be the only way out of this probably 08:21:30 You know what would work? 08:21:31 Merged mining. In that scenario the hashrate adds together to form one giant network. In the scenario we have now, everyone’s competing for the same cpu hashrate. So XMR isn’t very strong with its tail emissions. 08:21:33 Ltc and doge are merge mined. With that, LTC enjoys over 10x the security it would if it weren’t merge mined. 08:21:35 Tail emissions was never going to work. But merge mining might: Bonus points if we find a coin to merge Mine with that has an uncapped supply like doge. 08:21:47 *less centralization 08:23:03 barthman132: Nah, Qubic can't keep this attack up forever. A coin with no actual proven value like Qubic will eventually die. 08:23:25 Wait, meant to reply to hi585858 08:25:26 yes but nothig will prevent nother attacker to try the same and without altering the blockchain probably only fcmp ca save us 08:25:55 What other attacker has the hashrate? 08:26:18 hopefully with good PR and usage it'll do the job to bring more incentive for miner to come 08:26:37 This Belarus guy is small fry, if we can be beat by him then we can get beat by many people. 08:27:04 qbic doesnt that much financial mean so I guess a states or very wealthy person with different interest than ours 08:27:46 let be honest on the fact is doesnt need extreme ressource to hurt us 08:28:21 We’re getting clowned by a guy with a 200 million dollar shitcoin. Their are many people like him who now see us as a potential target 08:28:50 exact, but im very against altering the chain somehow... 08:28:57 we can go through I think 08:29:12 but that my non expert view, you guys are the brain of the project 08:30:40 Would be great to have some kind of more efficient PR fundation to help fallow market average a little bit better, might have nothing to do you with, probably worth a css 08:30:40 I doubt he actually achieved it, but at this point he got what he wants he can pump his coin into oblivion and eventually pump. There are going to be people wanting to do the same thing 08:30:48 I doubt he actually achieved a real 51% attack but at this point he got what he wants he can pump his coin into oblivion and eventually pump. There are going to be people wanting to do the same thing 08:31:19 I doubt he actually achieved a real 51% attack but at this point he got what he wants he can pump his coin into oblivion and eventually dump. There are going to be people wanting to do the same thing 08:32:05 i dont disagree I think you are 100% right and more threats are to come if we stay at the same level, either technologically or economically 08:32:26 I'm also a non-expert, I mostly just spoke up to put down potential misinformation about 51% attacks. 08:32:37 Lol 08:33:04 Interestingly the news the mexc was rejecting monero was reported 18 hours ago 08:33:56 do you think fcmp could be ready before 2026 or this is extreme copium ? 08:34:29 2026 was the goal, and from the meeting logs I've read, we still seem to be on track. 08:34:39 appreciate 08:34:48 It won't be before the end of the year, I believe. 08:34:52 no rush,we want something that wont break xmr :) 08:34:55 So not in 2025 08:36:32 is there any professionnal PR in the hub that will fallow FCMP release or it is something to consider yet ? 08:36:49 this time frame could be good opportunity to work on something 08:37:50 might not even be a good place to light up the subject and im sorry if its the case 08:39:37 maybe under nda 08:51:25 what i dont understand: the purpopse of qubic mining monero is to sell it for their own token which they then burn in order to lower supply and drive up their price (correct me if i m wrong?). now if they attack monero and hence price drops, they hurt their own cause... or am i missing something? 08:53:49 It’s likely a marketing strategy. hell CFB claimed to have actually gotten a 51% attack and it pumped his coin by 5% and now everybody sold their gains it’s now losing 2% after 08:56:08 alright, another thing i dont quite understand is: qubic will have a halving soon I understand, and the sentiment i read here is that at that point their current tactic will no longer work. why is that? because presumably the qubic price will not rise to double the level and then the attack will not be so profitable or how exactly will that work? 08:57:15 We’re hoping that enough people won’t be able to join, because the incentive isn’t really their anymore. So we’re hoping after that happens most would just leave 08:57:34 We’re hoping that enough people won’t be able to join, because the incentive isn’t really their anymore. So we’re hoping after that happens most would just leave 08:58:37 thanks for clearing that up too! i saw some images floating around about the reorgs visualized - is that some kind of website or how do you get this information (how big of reorgs happened) 08:59:07 https://moneroconsensus.info/ 08:59:26 It might be down. It's been getting a lot of traffic. 09:00:01 So try again in a few minutes if it doesn't load. 09:00:03 ah perfect - thanks so much! 09:01:05 while it feels bad to have monero attacked right now, its also somewhat exciting? A lot of bitcoiners are bringing this point forward as an argument against xmr ("but what about big computing servers mining/attacking the network") 09:01:19 thank you to all the insightful comments in this channel! <3 09:01:34 bfb made it clear on x , he's not a "rational" attacker. Which raises questions if he is "funded from beyond" ? 09:01:51 *cfb 09:02:24 yeah, hard to know i guess. but something to keep in mind. 09:02:40 In the early years of Bitcoin it got a few close calls as well 09:03:31 it is exciting 09:03:59 so far the consensus is working 09:04:46 id be worried if they achieve a 10-11 block reorg though 09:10:06 That's a silly argument to make as a bitcoiner, they have security budget problems too 09:10:07 https://budget.day/ 09:11:25 sure, may be silly, but like someone said in this chat earlier, if monero can't even survive qubic, how will we survive nation state attacks etc... still asking myself this question and kind of come to the point that monero currently will not survive an attack like this. i think xenu has the same pessimism. 09:11:39 Sure they do, but we’re fairing worse off than bitcoin I’m afraid as of right now 09:13:07 i think we will need the PoS finalization layer 09:13:31 I'm not really qualified to say one way or another but moving to proof of stake is one potential option 09:13:45 I'm not sure it's the best option, there are centralization concerns there 09:14:10 unlike most other PoS coins, there are no CEXs who got free handouts, we are literally in tail emission. if you can still mine it, the permissiveness issue is also not a real one 09:14:11 alternatively some kind of monetary policy change 09:14:33 no way 09:14:37 don't blame you 09:14:57 just spitballing really 09:15:07 higher fees, yes. emission changes, fuck no 09:17:02 interesting, i m not too familiar with PoS... this would be on the monero network then, right? 09:20:48 Ethereum pulled it off a few years ago, reading their documentation on proof of stake would be the place to start. But yah, it would be on monero and very much still decentralized. And since monero doesn't have native smart contract capability restaking tokens and the centralization problems that came with them on ethereum shouldn't be an issue. 09:22:03 alexanarcho: it wouldnt go fully PoS, just have the PoS validators "lock" the current PoW chain so you cant re-org past that point 09:22:17 yeah i understood that 09:22:43 ohhhh that's cool 09:22:45 so basically just pos against reorg, and keep pow for chain security and validating blocks, right? 09:22:53 correct 09:23:00 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/135 09:23:10 tbh, i like it 09:24:44 I like the idea of staked validators too, the only problem is it does not solve our current issues because it would likely take a significant amount of time to implement 09:25:50 kayaba has already built half the stuff we need 09:26:23 Yeah but its still not a quick fix 09:26:36 i think we will weather qubic without any changes 09:27:24 but we wont weather a state-sponsored attack 09:28:00 so the finality layer would be to protect us from bigger threats in the future 09:28:38 the "quick" fix right now is to start mining & potentially even buying rented hash 09:29:43 Well we could use a larger network as a finality layer for a quick fix 09:29:53 and implement it as a temporary solution 09:30:07 while something else is developed over the next year or so 09:30:14 depending how bad it gets 09:30:52 I agree I think we will be fine from qubic once this blows over but in case it does get critical that is an option 09:32:40 The quickest 'fix' now is an Ethereum SC for finality, using Ethereum blob space for data storage :/ 09:32:53 The immediate countermeasure is moar pow 09:41:40 kayabanerve: A selfish miner can obtain nearly all blocks if it has 49% of hashpower AFAIK. See figure 10(d) on page 12 here: https://kevinnegy.github.io/Selfish%20Mining%20Re-Examined.pdf 09:42:33 The Y axis is blocks per minute, so 0.5 blocks/minute with Monero's 2-minute target block time is 100% of blocks. 09:43:06 i think at that point the top 3 pools would counter attack 09:43:51 I'm not against that as is right now 09:44:09 might turn the chain into a mess though 09:44:20 elongated: No 51% attack by any definition is evident in the verifiable data, IMHO. 09:45:08 @Rucknium but there were 7 block re-orgs, right? 09:46:14 Usually, "51% attack" means a double-spend attack against a specific victim. I see zero double-spends when I input `print_pool_stats` into my node. 09:46:30 alright thanks for that info 09:46:41 they could have chosen not to double spend and just do reorgs 09:46:52 Unlikely 09:47:02 if they double spent, xmr would be crashing, not profitable for them either 09:47:05 You can easily get 7 block re-org with high enough _minority_ hashpower share and trying long enough. I did the calculations last year. Satoshi did some calculations, too. 09:47:52 See "Table: Duration of meta attack to achieve attack success probability of 50 percent" here: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/102#issuecomment-2402750881 09:48:38 Mind if I copy this message verbatim to paste in chat when this inevitably comes up again? 09:48:41 Their stated goals are not to double spend but to exclude other miners from block rewards but orphaning all other blocks outside their pool 09:48:53 if we hold out for 6 more days, qubic block rewards drop by 50% 09:49:04 Key images would provide an additional problem for an attacker attempting a double spend anyways 09:49:34 That’s assuming the price for qubic stays the same, but yes the halving will definitely hurt them in my opinion 09:49:46 If you have 30% of hashpower and you are constantly trying for a 7-block re-org, you only have to try for about 3.5 hours to reach a 50% probability of achieving a 7-block re-org. 09:49:47 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/zWLlEOGqiibMGIXwzOXlqDlI 09:49:57 still claiming he's being helpful towards monero 09:50:03 *8 days 09:50:05 Torir: Sure. I've posted this work a lot recently. 09:50:27 *data availability, not data storage 09:50:35 Rucknium can you calculate this: if they have 35% of hashpower, how long do they need to mine to get 51/100 blocks in any consecutive 100 blocks? 09:50:51 hows it looking for 10/11 (whatever can break transactions) 09:51:07 I don't know how to calculate it properly, I can only do monte-carlo simulations to get an approximate number 09:51:44 sech1: Selfish mining or honest mining? 09:51:53 honest mining, for starters 09:52:05 just assume they are able to get 35% of blocks, one way or another 09:53:42 The order of the 51 doesn't matter, right? (Of course, in a double-spend attack, the order matters.) 09:53:44 if hashrate is 5GH/s and they add 2.6GH/s, doesn't that make the HR grow to 7.6GH/s? 09:55:59 The context here is that Qubic got 51 blocks out of 100 and used it to "show" they had a 51% attack, despite there being no victims except a bunch of orphaned blocks. I don't believe Qubic had 51 blocks in a row, someone please correct me if I am wrong. 09:56:43 the victim were the miners not being paid for their found blocks 09:58:30 Yes, I suppose that is technically correct. My point is that Qubic is trying to create misinformation about their capabilities, so we want some math showing how hard it was for them to get that particular number (and why having 51 blocks in a set of 100 consecutive blocks doesn't mean 51% hashrate). 09:58:53 they've been doing that the whole time 09:59:04 exaggeration, lying, etc 09:59:06 nothing new 09:59:13 What you mean scammers lie? 09:59:45 Rucknium I ran 100k simulations: 1000 consecutive blocks with 35% probability of each block being from one miner, then check rolling window of 100 blocks to find any 51/100. It found this window in 5467 cases (5.467%) 10:00:10 you can point it out to people if you want, anybody who's bought it will just argue with you in bad faith 10:00:35 if they have 40%, this probability increases to 53.7% 10:00:40 so it ramps up pretty fast 10:00:52 not a surprise, they were able to get 51/100 eventually and screenshot it 10:01:27 41% of blocks -> probability increases to 68.3% 10:02:56 well they usually just screenshot their own data from jetski whenever the pool share % on that website goes above 51% and consider the job done 10:03:08 growing only 5% from 35% to 50% you increase odds from 5.46 to 53.7? 10:03:11 like a flip is switched or something and 51% "domination" as they say, is completed 10:03:13 They posted a screenshot of their wallet 10:03:14 growing only 5% from 35% to 40% you increase odds from 5.46 to 53.7? 10:03:32 sech1: The dependency of a moving window makes the probability calculation much more complicated, yes. If you just sample many independent 100-block ranges, it should be a simple computation based on the binomial distribution AFAIK. 10:03:48 At 50%+ you have 100% success rate (you have met the condition for a 51% attack), so the math checks out. 10:03:52 I wrote a script already and posted some numbers 10:04:51 So 35% of blocks doesn't give them much chance (5.467%) to get it, but 40% of blocks already gives the, 53.7% of successfully finding 51/100 blocks inside some 1000-block range 10:05:27 and if I take 40% and 2000-block range, it's already 79.66% 10:05:47 so they just need to get 35-40% and then wait, wait, wait until they get lucky and screenshot it 10:05:50 then spam social media 10:05:59 pretty much what theyve been doing 10:06:11 The many 100-block ranges assumption I get 0.07% with the binomial method. Anyway, this is why I was making a distinction in the conversations earlier about fixed intervals vs. rolling intervals. Much easier to appear to get a streak of luck if you are considering rolling intervals. That's why I set moneroconsneus.info to show fixed intervals instead of trailing, rolling intervals. 10:06:43 Yes, rolling interval increases probabilities significantly. That's counter-intuitive, but simulations show it 10:07:03 Probability theory is hard 10:08:22 It's not counter-intuitive to me at all. It's a type of classic multiple hypothesis testing issue that you always have to be aware of in empirical work. Roll the dice enough times and you will get double sixes. 10:09:02 Not trying to brag or anything, but this is warned about in all of statistics. 10:09:59 There is a lot of work on valid stopping rules for hypothesis tests when you have a series of results coming in on an continuous basis. 10:10:01 You develop that intuition when you study probability enough, but casinos can tell you that probability intuition is not something that people normally have. 10:10:38 this means they can reorg the blocks by being lucky with 35-40%, but they cannot successful do other attacks like double-spend as they didn't reach 51%? 10:11:00 For example, medical trials need to stop when there is extremely good news about the treatment. When there is not doubt that the treatment works, you _must_, ethically, start giving the treatment to patients who were receiving the placebo. 10:11:22 I have a sense of foreboding whenever I'm writing code that concatenates strings and passes them to shell or SQL that tells me that something might be wrong, yet we keep having shell and SQL vulnerabilities in actual code from people who apparently don't have that sense. 10:11:41 Not for a sufficient amount of confirmations Leonardo: 10:11:47 But you need a valid statistical stopping rule. Those are complicated because you have non-independence. 10:12:41 They can double-spend with the probabilities in: "Table: Duration of meta attack to achieve attack success probability of 50 percent" here: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/102#issuecomment-2402750881 10:12:51 (Assuming victim permits unlimited attempts in that window) 10:12:52 Rucknium: would you support a pos finality layer? 10:13:31 I have been warning about the weaknesses in PoW-only for a while. 10:15:07 Which doesn't answer the question directly :p 10:15:22 ^ I don't know if this message from a year ago will show up since it's so old 10:15:47 I don't see a replied-to message :/ 10:15:57 > I haven't read Budish's latest version, but I read most of his previous version. I like his simple observation that PoW uses the value of a flow to protect the value of a stock. Put that way, PoW seems like an expensive and risky protocol. Then, he analyzes potential failure modes of ASIC-and non-ASIC PoW protocols, which is also nice. 10:15:59 > Budish has a new paper with Lewis-Pye and Roughgarden that extends the analysis to general blockchains and compares PoW with PoS: "The Economic Limits of Permissionless Consensus" https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09173 10:17:17 The first Budish paper I was referring to is Budish, E. (2025). Trust at Scale: The Economic Limits of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 140(1), 1–62. https://moneroresearch.info/101 10:17:44 Finally published in a (top) economics journal after years of being in draft state. 10:18:19 Monero has a 10-block lock on transferred funds before they become spendable, therefore a double-spend attack would require a reorg of at least 11 blocks. afaik 10:18:49 I would support a literature review of Monero's options for blockchain security. I think research on this topic has been neglected in the Monero research community. 10:19:12 You could double-spend against a victim who accepts your transaction as confirmed with fewer than 10 if you can pull off a reorg of that size. 10:19:38 If you find an exchange that only requires 5 confirmations, you could double-spend against it pretty easily with 40% hashrate. 10:20:13 I would be open to changes of Monero's blockchain security protocol if better systems exist, perhaps after an exhaustive search. 10:21:09 you still need a reorg of 11 blocks, otherwise what's the 10-block lock for? 10:21:52 There's some complexity with if your victim will let you try again if your attack fails and things of that regard when it comes to double-spend attacks with less than 50% hashrate, and unfortunately I'm not qualified to explain them in more than very general terms. 10:22:09 the only way to spend outputs is if your inputs are 10-block old 10:24:13 I send 1 XMR to an exchange that only requires 5 confirmations, wait for the transaction to confirm 5 times, trade for some instantly withdrawing coin on the now-unlocked balance on the exchange, withdraw immediately. In the meantime, I'm mining to perform the attack, and with some probability I get to undo my deposit that only has 5 confirmations. 10:24:15 The 10 block lock doesn't protect against a double-spend attack with less than 10 blocks of confirmations. The 10 block lock only makes sure that transactions are still valid if there was a 10+ re-org (because Monero txs reference outputs by index number of the blockchain, not output public key directly). 10:25:06 thank you Rucknium 10:26:09 It's subtle. koe explains it here: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/95 10:26:53 Yes, there are two "fix the 10 block lock" MRL issues because people wanted it so much. The other one is https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/102 10:29:02 Anyway, to try to answer your question, sech1: I think simulations are fine for now and can actually be better when trying to convince programmers. I can try to look into exact probability formulas for the complicated rolling window case later. 10:29:05 Can someone explain what is going on with Qubic? Did they really do a 51% like CTO of Trezor said? How tf can they afford such hashrate? Who is helping them? 10:30:03 All signs point to "No, Qubic did not do a 51%". 10:30:15 @r00t_of_bnets check out the logs of this chat https://libera.monerologs.net/monero-research-lounge/20250812 10:30:16 r00t_of_bnets: No. Read the room's backlog. If Matrix doesn't show it, get it here: https://libera.monerologs.net/monero-research-lounge/20250812 10:33:02 Are they hiding their hashrate somehow because it doesn't appear here - https://miningpoolstats.stream/monero. In fact the nethash dropped by quite a bit in 1-2 days. 10:33:22 how much would it cost to rent 40% of monero's network hashrate per hour? 10:33:23 is there even availability in the market? 10:33:25 they could be hiding it in pools 10:33:29 ofrn had a theory about that 10:34:40 that's a voluntarily reporting service, they stopped reporting it, therefore you won't see it there 10:35:42 afaik if you mine a sidechain the network won't see your hashrate as you're not publishing blocks in order to calculate it 10:36:08 This is all confusing because Qubic *is* doing an attack, just not a "51% attack". It's a selfish mining attack (a real attack, but not the same as a 51% attack) combined with a misinformation campaign. They are trying to create the message that they *are* capable of doing a 51% attack when they are not. 10:38:52 I double that they would do a real 51% double-send attack because that would be fraud. A 51% double-spend attack is supposed to be executed by an unknown attacker. If they were to double-spend against a centralized exchange, they are a known entity that could be punished by other exchanges,, i.e. de-listing. 10:42:57 I'll be honest, I don't actually know what the 51% attack is supposed to refer to. I think it can refer to a few different types of attack. 10:44:01 Then why is there a unknown miners in the chart 10:44:07 sech1: It looks like this would be the answer, which includes some casual commentary: https://www.askamathematician.com/2010/07/q-whats-the-chance-of-getting-a-run-of-k-successes-in-n-bernoulli-trials-why-use-approximations-when-the-exact-answer-is-known/ 10:44:10 > And that’s why exact solutions are stupid. 10:44:11 > Want an exact answer without all the hard work and really nasty formulas? Computers were invented for a reason, people. 10:45:08 Torir: if you had to guess, what will ultimately be the outcome of this attack? 10:45:47 economic reason an attacker would invest into a 51% is to be able to double-spend and recoup the investment 10:45:49 in this case the economic incentive is marketing behind claiming "our project is so cool, we've been able to break Monero" 10:46:06 Well, that doesn't give the exact answer, because we don't need 51 in a row. Just 51 in a treak of 100. Need to look more 10:46:17 sech1 ^ 10:46:34 simulations give an approximate answer 10:46:45 enough to get 3-4 correct digits of the probability 10:47:52 r00t_of_bnets: Are you referring to the Qubic attack? It depends on how the community reacts. At the present time, Qubic doesn't have the hashrate to take over the Monero chain completely (an actual 51% attack). If they convince miners to move to mining their coin, due to misinformation, or due to mining their coin being more profitable, that can change. If the miners don't move o 10:47:53 ver, they just lose. If the miners do move over, it's possible Monero can survive with a hardfork or with block checkpoints (there is a currently unused DNS checkpointing feature that might help with that). 10:51:55 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/CbGDwGzidCBuDMLMLguXkxUT 10:52:23 he's reposting FUD 10:55:10 Torir: how is it profitable for miners to mine Qubic at all??? They are mining Monero only 50% of the time and the other 50% they are using their compute for "AI". If I understood correctly Qubic receives XMR from the mined blocks, sells them for Qubic and then pays out the miners. The question is - who buys the Qubic, where and why? I have some really strange feelign after lookin g at the Qubic reddit and related websites, like it's literally all AI generated. 10:55:25 what the price chart has to do with the post? 10:57:10 r00t_of_bnets: It's one of those scamcoins you hear about. The more you look into it, the shadier it seems. For instance, the coin is highly centralized. Yet it got enough traction to get some coin value, to the point that mining it *does* generate some monetary value. At least, that's what Qubic claims. I have not investigated mining profitability of Qubic. I stopped once I saw t 10:57:11 hat the mining software is closed source. 10:58:21 that's how they posted it, to make it more dramatic I suppose 10:58:23 CryptoRank say they are "Leading crypto industry research & analytics platform" 10:58:25 what they really are: "Crypto industry FUD network" 11:02:27 Just wanted to add that it it's all highly suspicious, not just in terms of Qubic in general but also with the TradeOgre shutdown recently. Anyway I will keep my mining rigs on during this time, just to help the network. Thank you for your input. 11:26:11 Ugh. The current claim I just got pinged about on Twitter is they had 51% of hash power because they mined 51/100 blocks. 11:26:56 That's exactly what sech1 analyzed above. 11:28:23 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/VEXrAGpcTjHvgemzkfHLrXXy 11:28:25 yeah to demonstrate a 51% capability, you need a longer window, or use selfish mining to demonstrate it in a short window, which would net you >95% of block reward with 51% hash power 11:29:19 (image is the earnings vs. Selfish mining % from https://kevinnegy.github.io/Selfish%20Mining%20Re-Examined.pdf Figure 12(d) for IRC folks) 11:30:27 They failed to even approach any reasonable threshold for a reliable proof of attack 11:40:22 To be clear though, they have far, far too much concentrated hash rate under a single entity control, which poses significant economic risk regardless, which is the primary disincentive to stakeholders underinvesting in mining to allow such concentration to persist 11:42:10 I would have already tripled or more my long term hash rate with miner righ purchases, but even the talk of entertaining PoS has put that on pause 11:43:59 Unfortunately the centralizing aspect of PoS would make mining/Pow ultimately superfluous from a network security (and decentralized consensus) perspective - and mining, or using, Monero, no longer interesting from my pov 11:44:54 I would have already tripled or more my long term hash rate with miner rig purchases, but even the talk of entertaining PoS has put that on pause 11:47:57 Just added 15 MH/s, can maintain it for a few weeks. 11:51:10 just started mining again after reading about this qubic bs 12:11:08 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> told you all you should xmrig harder 12:11:09 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> :3 12:13:11 XD 12:13:14 https://x.com/vtnerd/status/1955238417404453296?t=cZvHD4ExZ6ZeoJEbUyygsA&s=19 12:13:32 The twitter post just reiterates what kill/switch: said 12:14:53 Your slicing the hashrate with selfish mining such that it's literal takeover once you get 51% - you get 100% of the blocks at 51% 12:15:02 fascinating fud, meanwhile the exchanges and swaps have no XMR to trade 🤣😂 12:16:49 And credit to the authors of the original paper for truly understanding statistics+math 12:22:02 for those that are unaware rucknium 's CCS has just opened https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/Rucknium-Research-II.html 12:22:12 also vtnerd https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/vtnerd-2025-q3.html 12:22:16 the full list is here, they were all added at the same time https://ccs.getmonero.org/funding-required/ 12:22:32 it is currently safe to send txs :D 12:22:52 I will be doing so later today after some work 12:24:08 <3​21bob321:monero.social> General fund cough cough 12:24:32 +5 MH/s also. totally 20. 12:24:33 it will cost me around 0.01BTC/day if my counting is not f up 12:24:38 Thanks, nioc 12:25:08 meow 12:25:22 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> nyah~ 13:13:42 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/muOUluOnuhrPtmhHjlCuDhCa 13:14:09 their rig rentals running out? lol 13:14:30 xD wheres this metric from? 13:14:40 and people realizing he's scamming them? 13:16:29 their fake explorer 13:16:36 explorer.jetskipool.ai/xmr-tracker 13:16:43 looks vibecoded 13:16:53 pretty sure they just lie about their hash 13:17:04 everything we have seen so far lines up with them having ~30% 13:17:10 not more 13:22:41 btw, I wouldn't let @monero tweet anything about qubic 13:23:01 no need to acknowledge some troll 13:31:02 I wonder if the attack has stopped because CfB isn't able to sell xmr any more because exchanges have shut down xmr operations. And he may be a troll, but he isn't a nobody, he was a pioneer of many of the ideas that modern PoS networks have implemented, he should be taken seriously. 13:34:01 youd think he has enough money to keep this going for longer than a day 13:34:22 especially after his shitcoin pumped so hard 13:37:01 Well if you merge with LTC, then LTC miners would get moth doge and XMR rewards, so effectively a cumulative tail emission for all three chains. I'd also suggest keeping half of mining RandomX to not be fully dependent on LTC / scrypt asics 13:37:16 I am sure he alone has enough money from his past projects to keep this going long enough if he needs to prove his point. Monero should better implement better defenses. 13:37:52 moar ryzen cores !!! 13:40:32 What about reworking PoW concept and protocol, by paying more for less hashrate. 13:40:33 I mean for example if you mine for single address and you have 25 kh, you get 1 XMR/year, and if you got 100 kh, you get only 2, for 400 kh, 3 XMR and so on 13:40:35 This will not only resolve Qubic problem, but also the problem with big centrilized pools 13:40:37 u​ser000, like what? 13:42:20 it is something like we had with XMRvsBeast, before they changed rewrd calculation 13:42:22 it costs $70 million per day according to the ledger cto 13:42:40 it is something like we had with XMRvsBeast, before they changed rewrd system 13:42:57 lol what 13:43:09 https://xcancel.com/p3b7_/status/1955173413992984988 13:43:17 it costs $75 million per day according to the ledger cto 13:43:33 Sustaining this attack is estimated to cost $75 million per day. While potentially lucrative, it threatens to destroy confidence in the network almost overnight. Other miners are left with no incentive to continue, as Qubic can simply orphan any competing blocks, effectively becoming the sole miner. 13:43:48 15:40:33 I mean for example if you mine for single address and you have 25 kh, you get 1 XMR/year, and if you got 100 kh, you get only 2, for 400 kh, 3 XMR and so on 13:43:57 this doesn't work in a system where payout is obfuscated 13:43:59 more so 13:44:08 they can spread hashrate across accounts or addresses 13:44:11 lol he bought into this fud hook line and sinker 13:44:13 it's instant to make one 13:44:36 XMRvsBeast does it locally with his own funds 13:44:45 basses: multi-pow with some share of asics, i would say. 13:44:47 and it has been gamed in that specific way, making multiple accounts 13:45:24 u​ser000, any papers or code under his name? 13:46:15 Who knew lying online works... 13:47:10 basses: check out NXT, it was CfB's invention, Ethereum and others took ideas from it. It didn't enjoy corporate support like Ethereum did, and faded away, but it was there before Ethereum. 13:47:12 Lmao a crypto company CTO should know better than to take random crypto shills on Twitter at face value 13:48:13 anyone who's turned on the news in the last decade, I'm afraid 13:50:42 I think this wont work, as this means giving each individual miner/smal pool control of the wallet 13:52:19 if its really 70M per day that shit cant be sustainable at all 13:54:28 70M a day doesn't make much sense to me when XMR's entire daily security budget is under 130,000 USD even when XMR was at $300 13:54:58 stole from north korean hackers 13:58:11 yeah true 13:58:47 prices for rented hashrate go up with demand so i could see 200-300k a day being realistic if its mostly rented 13:59:16 it isn't. qubic was just at 17% hash rate of 0.85 GH/s (looks like they stopped mining now). they would have to increase their hash rate by approximately 3.48 GH/s (4x), which is equivalent to 4.33 GH/s, assuming no one else mines while they gain hash rate. this costs just over 3 BTC per day to maintain 14:00:48 hey guys... I'm wondering, aren't re-orgs already to be considered successful double-spend attack on coinbase transactions? 14:01:22 @venture, not really because you have to wait 10 confirmations to spend an output 14:01:46 https://qubic.org/blog-detail/historic-takeover-complete-qubic-miners-now-secure-monero-network 14:02:07 noname: 14:02:09 >> kill/switch 14:02:11 >> With PoW you have other centralization pressures, but the provable decentralization is a function of a real world, system independent costs incurred by the stakeholder, which does not exist at all in PoS 14:02:13 > when you think of these risks, please consider a hybrid model is completely different from pure pow and pos. let's continue this chat in the lounge. 14:02:15 A hybrid model is meaningfully different, but not for actual consensus. The only reason to implement a hybrid model is because decentralized consensus failed, or is judged likely to fail. Once implemented, the PoW portion is not a consensus mechanism; it can be used for coinbase reward, but then again, as there is no network security aspect worth considering for PoW, the most pr ofitable mining operations will be the ones to benefit from coinbase collection (as always) - and there is no decentralization incentive to mine, or use the coin, if you want to participate in a decentralization-maximizing ecosystem as described in the OG paper, A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System 14:02:33 noname: 14:02:35 > > kill/switch 14:02:37 > > With PoW you have other centralization pressures, but the provable decentralization is a function of a real world, system independent costs incurred by the stakeholder, which does not exist at all in PoS 14:02:39 > > when you think of these risks, please consider a hybrid model is completely different from pure pow and pos. let's continue this chat in the lounge. 14:02:41 A hybrid model is meaningfully different, but not for actual consensus. The only reason to implement a hybrid model is because decentralized consensus failed, or is judged likely to fail. Once implemented, the PoW portion is not a consensus mechanism; it can be used for coinbase reward, but then again, as there is no network security aspect worth considering for PoW, the most pr ofitable mining operations will be the ones to benefit the most from coinbase collection (as always) - and there is no decentralization incentive to mine, or use the coin, if you want to participate in a decentralization-maximizing ecosystem as described in the OG paper, A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System 14:03:08 never mined a block and it shows /s 14:03:24 coinbase outputs need like 70 confs 14:03:25 With the takeover test now complete, the Monero network's core functionality remains intact. Its privacy, speed, and usability have not been compromised. 14:03:29 wow thanks qubic 14:03:39 hey they found a bug in haveno 14:03:56 so thanks for the stress test 14:04:30 yeah. but still. it's pocketed and then gone. small miners with a block frequency of 7 days or so... and then seeing it gone. i felt double-spend-attacked at least 14:04:33 @monerobull called me out and i accept it. thanks for the correction :D 14:05:50 another little known fact is that btc had over 31 orphaned blocks were discarded back in 2013. hopefully this puts things into perspective. qubic was only able to do 7 orphaned blocks during their attack 14:05:51 https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork 14:05:53 from block 225430. 14:05:55 225461 2013-03-12 16:21:02 00000000000002d74c31d9c9f8e4768c0b51c3f145be07be7e77af0146144c30 14:05:57 225460 2013-03-12 15:05:56 00000000000002afb9088485b05a2b8a1dfa6b82e3e915fa0765879a05061461 14:05:59 225459 2013-03-12 14:36:39 000000000000036e459f26b1dc02683c9beeb061eedf18689995143354467245 14:06:01 225458 2013-03-12 12:18:23 00000000000000620d78c08bd345aa489b02a52c5f823f0324d3c42212577c24 14:06:03 225457 2013-03-12 09:48:00 0000000000000067fa40b890799ef9814e1e427abd5fc9f4751ffb3ef6512d14 14:06:05 225456 2013-03-12 07:59:29 000000000000031ce5f5c447dbe06ebd62f988c6718e1a17d14b9dcd8ff9605c 14:06:07 225455 2013-03-12 07:14:21 000000000000009d2dee89c7732b5bc912845d96a6bee38cab815949cfa60d23 14:06:09 225454 2013-03-12 05:17:11 00000000000000df96f272c3b1e9dd15272b55750966cbd239219b94756c73ec 14:06:43 it isn't a double-spend though 14:11:22 not in the literal sense, but it's still harmful to honest miners and skews the hashrate down. every intentional orphaned block had a real cost not calculated in the network hashrate. 14:11:23 I read Rucknium's Meta-attack analysis.. I'm not sure, but would these numbers be at least somewhat improved if the block frequency was lower? 14:12:56 venture: Yes, but not enough to make a big difference IMHO. Monero used to have 1-minute block time intervals, but raised to 2 minutes to reduce the orphan rate. 14:12:57 if implemented pow would remain consensus for half the blocks. while pos would have the other half. we arent talking about checkpointing and removing pow utility from consensus. 14:12:59 to 51% the network you would need to be lucky enough to mine a pos block + pow block in continued succession which is waaaay more unlikely to happen. 14:13:05 https://x.com/BitMEXResearch/status/1955254320305217726 14:13:13 finally a reasonable take for once 14:15:26 best take I've read so far on x 14:16:54 @noname-user0:matrix.org what did you think of https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/98? 14:17:14 here was my concern reposted: 14:17:15 "if we do use tevador's proposal, how would the change in hash rate look like? unless I've understood it incorrectly, large pools will not exist because (from tevadors proposal) miners would either switch to p2pool by running their own node or quit entirely. because there's no way a large pool can provide 256 MiB cache per hour for every miner sustainably. the issue with this is t hat if lots of miners "drop out", wouldn't the total network hash rate drop substantially, making an attack easier?" 14:19:19 I don't include p2pool in "large pool" and by "large pool" I mean centralized ones 14:19:49 apparently cloudflare offers free CDN up to 512 MB, dunno if anyone can confirm that 14:20:01 but it may efeat the whole purpose 14:20:07 but it may defeat the whole purpose 14:23:50 tevador used https://docs.digitalocean.com/platform/billing/bandwidth/#droplets in his PoC 14:29:32 cloudflare does appear to have a 512mb cache for free. they might terminate certain usage consider abusive 14:29:38 cloudflare does appear to have a 512mb cache for free. they might terminate certain usage considered abusive 14:30:14 This is exactly the point, it does make 51% attacks impossible because of the PoS portion, and PoS doesn't use mining, as the network security is guaranteed effectively by the largest stakeholders. The PoW is totally unnecessary for consensus at that point, because it offers no additional relevant security - it's rendered irrelevant and unneeded to defend against a mining attack like Qubic, and has no way to defend against whatever the whims of the PoS stake are - the concentration of stake is predictable but invisible, which is one of the things that make it brilliant as a fully centralized consensus mechanism. Once you have a centralized system that perfectly follows the distribution of wealth, you have just recreated the same ultimate incentive struct ure that any system run by the wealthy minority has. Any defection or objection on the PoW side could be "mitigated" by the PoS side, which is precisely why it works against an attack like Qubics. 14:33:05 ... and then LLMs multiply that bs. Example: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/qubic/ "Qubic price stabilized above key moving averages after a 9.55% weekly drop." 14:35:02 you are only looking at it one way. pos has a lot of issue if its the only consensus mechanism. you need to add slashing and other penalties like that and potentially introduce kycd master nodes to ensure it continues to function properly like ethereum did. 14:35:42 kyc master nodes 14:35:45 by keeping pow as half of the consensus you dont need all this other garbage on the pos side and can stick with a basic implementation 14:36:01 forget about PoS if we ever need to introduce kyc to determine security 14:36:08 16:00:48 hey guys... I'm wondering, aren't re-orgs already to be considered successful double-spend attack on coinbase transactions? 14:36:11 locktime is 60 blocks 14:36:31 exactly my point 14:38:18 double spend is defined as a transaction being spent twice not a coinbase reward going to a different address. 14:38:19 and even without this "attack" the reorgs of blocks is a common occurance. 14:39:40 from their blog post: "However, the end goal is for the Monero protocol's security to be provided by Qubic’s miners." 14:39:41 lunatics. why would they want that? kyc-ing transactions for qutard to mine it? or is it really just "economical"? 14:40:03 PoS is the only real consensus mechanism once it is implemented, because implementing it comes at no "cost" (in the real, world, PoW mining costs real effort sense of the word) - which also means that the client development cycle is fully captured by PoS interests, too. If PoS can be implemented, it can be adjusted via the same process that favors the interests that get it implem ented in the first place. PoW is merely ceremonial and/or for coinbase distribution is such a system. Which is why, if it was attempted or pushed, it would probably lead to (at least) two competing forks of Monero. 14:40:12 PoS is the only real consensus mechanism once it is implemented, because implementing it comes at no "cost" (in the real, world, PoW mining costs real effort sense of the word) - which also means that the client development cycle is fully captured by PoS interests, too. If PoS can be implemented, it can be adjusted via the same process that favors the interests that get it implem ented in the first place. PoW is merely ceremonial and/or for coinbase distribution in such a system. Which is why, if it was attempted or pushed, it would probably lead to (at least) two competing forks of Monero. 14:40:39 its just marketing bs, trying to push their coin 14:40:49 The only problem I have with the finality layer (hybrid PoW + PoS solution), is the amount of time it will take (2years, according to Kayaba) to implement 14:41:29 tevador's proposal can be implemented quickly 14:41:44 although the consequences are not clear 14:42:28 it's not tho as I explained. 14:43:33 I'm not so sure.. they seem to have a positive feedback loop going on eventually may push them over that 51% edge. 14:43:35 He seems to be well aware of that and is harping on the self-fulfilling prophecy fallacy. switching/believing that would make this likely in the first place. but every lost / re-orged block that had been pocketed let's miners seriously consider this 14:43:37 https://xcancel.com/c___f___b/status/1953763035954233394#m 14:44:14 yeah the technical implementation does seem like the biggest concern for me as well. especially with the network privacy updates coming and making sure we can do zk proofs around stake weights and without compromising privacy of wallets. 14:45:32 qubic's miners have been subsidized with an illiquid shitcoin using their emissions, which will be halved in just over a week. the reason they are pushing so hard now is because they cannot sustain this "attack" for long once their emissions fall and trust erodes 14:45:44 doesn't change too much if the reorg blocks are less than the coinbase lock 14:46:07 the expected payout is the same 14:46:40 if that attacker hash rate was mining in the clear vs hidden 14:47:28 https://qubic.org/blog-detail/historic-takeover-complete-qubic-miners-now-secure-monero-network 14:47:32 first, to me it feels like a one-man show... and he is loosing real bucks - every hour. 14:48:40 they are definitely losing money with this attack as mining itself is not profitable on xmr... especially when the price dropped 14:48:57 matrix search is very terrible 14:49:35 the expected payout is lower though than the one you see / is calucated from network hashrate. since orphans skew the reported hashrate down and the real hashrate is higher 14:49:36 @ofrnxmr:monero.social how did the alpha stressnet go? I couldn't find any resources on it even after scouring the meeting logs 14:49:51 I saw that you posted about the alpha stressnet for fcmp++ on x 14:50:07 The public one isnt out yet, but mine hit 15mb blocks yesterday 14:50:49 Node sync seems to be about as fast as ringct. Tx generation for 1in-2out txs is fast, about 1 second 14:51:10 did you manage to test syncing? 14:52:01 how about tx generation for many inputs? I remember there were concerns about that 14:52:05 I get it, but the actual incentives in any system with PoS make PoW merely ceremonial, no matter what the "in system" design is for slashing, penalty, share of block minting, etc. The successful implementation of PoS is the proof itself that such a take over by a wealth minority has already occurred, and makes the system design fully unresponsive to minority stakeholders no matt er their share of the network participation, because the system design has been chosen and is ultimately controlled by % of stake interest. This is exactly the case with Ethereum or any other PoS coin. At that point, the PoW miners, no matter their numbers or hash rate or anything else, have the same chance of overthrowing or changing Monero design in-system as they do levying c hanges on Visa or Mastercard. All they can do is fork. 14:52:27 128inputs = 7mins to create a tx 14:52:38 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/ASfJKPCDywdqHJaOeXOkfdKA 14:52:41 how did p2pool mine an empty block 14:53:07 And probably abt 1 second for the node to verify it 14:53:19 not bad 14:53:27 I expected much worse 😅 14:54:35 yeah, same. Using without the 128input patch was.. difficult. I vwry often have 8in-2out or 16in-2out txs 14:55:12 how did p2pool mine an empty block <<>> because the blocks were 6 seconds apart and there were no txs to include 14:55:14 man, I really disagree with you here. the unbalanced distribution of rewards skewed to pow solves this problem. you would have to agree that at 0% rewards to stakers there's no "takeover" as you described. but then, there is no incentive for stakers to run nodes either so it needs to be greater than 0% for it to function properly with enough of the coins staking to generate blocks. 14:56:38 Proof-of-pow-stake 😬 14:57:13 proof of stake-work :D 14:57:35 There is no in-system checks or balance against proof of stake interest that works, no matter how rube goldberg you make it, by adding in PoW puzzles for the proles, etc; if an operating network consensus is weighted or checked by stake in any way, you already lost your decentralization. A lot of people disagree with this, but the base case of the nothing at stake issue has never changed since its first introduction, it's just not decentralized consensus once its in a system. 14:58:47 There is no in-system checks or balance against proof of stake interest that works, no matter how rube goldberg you make it, by adding in PoW puzzles for the proles, etc; if an operating network consensus is weighted or checked by stake in any way, you already lost your decentralization. A lot of people disagree with this, but the base case of the nothing at stake issue has never changed since its first introduction, it's just not decentralized consensus once it's in a system. 15:04:41 implicit proof of stake: retire the block reward, make it "economical" only to the people who have a "stake" in the network. 15:04:41 bites in the bitter apple that honest miners and economic miners are mutually exclusive. 15:05:14 ^that's a joke 15:08:15 One might consider that, in order to continue staking, the money has to be left to stake, an opportunity cost, while a PoW miner can spend their block rewards. If the PoS staker sells their block rewards too, their relative staking power degradres, which does not happen for pow. So the effective cost is not 0. Though how to compare is another issue. 15:09:09 I mean relative staking power degradres vs other stakers. I'm assuming network wide pow hash rate stays constant of course. 15:10:24 Moneromooo, whattdya think about only being able to stake coinbases 15:10:59 *only coinbases 15:11:32 I'm not sure I agree with the argument overall, but it is interesting to read, thanks. 15:11:45 It does feel a bit like "this is not perfect, therefore it is bad" though. 15:12:04 I guess I need to keep it in my head for a while for it to percolate... 15:12:11 I have no thought about this. 15:12:31 Ty 15:12:39 Well, first thought comes now: 15:13:15 if it is the case, only pow miners can stake, and in relative propotion to their hash rate. So it's essentially a nop ? 15:13:34 It just adds a bit of probabilistic froth to the hash rate distribution. 15:13:47 But hey, I thought about it for 10 seconds, so... :) 15:15:24 Only cubic can stake ? If they had enough hashrate to mine all blocks? 15:15:41 Right, but that assumes they dont sell or move their coins 15:15:53 @moo 15:16:22 Well, it just delays, no ? You can sell once staked. 15:16:25 They can sell some stake some, others can’t stake bought coins with your proposal? 15:16:28 [@elongated:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@elongated:matrix.org) yeah, selfish mining all/majority of the stake is an issue 15:16:31 Since it's then not eligible anymore. 15:18:09 It's the same for staking all coins for this: the more you sell, the more your relative staking power decreases. 15:19:45 What is the intended benefit of staking only coinbases ? 15:20:29 Actually, if pos coinbases do also get eligible, then you're right, it doens't delay, it prevents. 15:20:49 Does it matter though ? It only influences the price. 15:20:58 Nothing just keeps out ppl who actually bought the coin 15:20:58 (I think ?) 15:21:54 avoid whale staking and buy in, like exchanges. mining pools could probably offer pooled staking (dont withdraw coins), so it doesnt stop staking pools 15:22:38 Why is buy in to secure chain such a big issue 15:23:18 its not, it just isn't decentralized 15:23:49 ok, we will agree to disagree then. pos does not automatically equal centralized in my view. 15:23:57 How is it not decentralised? Anyone can buy xmr and stake, easier than buying rigs and mining for months 15:24:44 Because cexs would dominate 15:24:55 in fact i think current pow is way more centralized if one big economic actor can monopolize blocks and hold the network hostage 15:25:14 mining pools currently dominate pow 15:25:33 They could, if ppl held their coins in cex ; anyways all cex are going away one by one 15:25:40 even Bitcoin pow isnt decentralized due to the pool centralization 15:26:00 I think it does hte discussion a disservice to use black and white extremes here. 15:26:05 Still better than current state of xmr ? 15:26:16 GM 15:26:22 not really 15:26:33 most pools are owned by one chinese entity 15:26:50 only 1 independent pool these days i believe 15:27:12 but they havent decided to be an asshole and kill the network on purpose 15:27:38 i didn't read through / understand it quite, but just want to drop it here. 15:27:39 there is research on energy backed crypto.. what i thought pow essentially is. but they go one step further and claim it can be pegged to / redeemed for kwy with some reversible computing voodoo 15:27:41 https://cryptoeconomicsystems.pubpub.org/pub/murialdo-physical-asset-stablecoin/release/2 15:27:43 and keep the pools they acquired unconsolidated so it looks decentralized 15:27:49 the root issue is that proof of stake isn't actually proof of anything, and has no actual penalty against collusion. Proof of work works because it's an effective solution to byzantine general's because you can't un-use energy and reuse it again. Proof of stake is a misnomer, it's really concentrated capital consensus with proof of nothing, because collusion can be organized off chain without undergoing any on-chain risks; slashing nor any other thing changes that. 15:27:51 Yeah, dont multiple pools just identify as different pools, but are the same behind the curtains? 15:28:29 i didn't read through / understand it quite, but just want to drop it here. 15:28:31 there is research on energy backed crypto.. what i thought pow essentially is. but they go one step further and claim it can be pegged to / redeemed for kWh with some reversible computing voodoo 15:28:33 https://cryptoeconomicsystems.pubpub.org/pub/murialdo-physical-asset-stablecoin/release/2 15:28:35 in btc for sure 15:29:26 Proof of pow stake would be proof that you you're pow hashing. Its not as simple as being party to a transactions (receiving deposits). Like, tradeogre was staking users zano (and keeping the $) 15:29:40 ok well whatever your dislike is with pos, would you agree that adding it an alternative consensus besides pure pow as an alternating block construction would eliminate pow 51% attacks completely? 15:29:44 What kind of collusion ? 15:32:00 It's not that I dislike it per se, after all I use a Visa card and Fedbucks and that works fine too, it's just that if I'm looking for decentralized consensus, it's not a solution to that, as it's easily disproven as a logical solution to the problem set. I use Monero because I'm looking for decentralized peer to peer cash with privacy, a PoS coin does not meet logical criteria f or that combined feature set 15:32:34 Yeah I like this theoretically in certain implementations, at least better than proof of stake 15:34:27 slashing and penalties absolutely changes the cost of off chain collision.... 15:34:29 we have very robust working examples of pos working and mitigating attacks. 15:34:31 we also have legal precedent which describes pos networks as being decentralized. (though we could obviously construct a centralized version of a finality layer as many of these networks have done) 15:36:45 PoS absolutely mitigates attacks, but that has nothing really to do with the on chain synthetic penalty; there is no cost to colluding off chain to reorganize a chain and rewrite the chain/database or the rules, the reason it doesn't happen is because the economic incentive to do so is in the hands of highly concentrated capital, and there's no rational incentive to change a stru cture you already control 15:38:54 PoS is not the way 15:41:14 So, you mean stakers colluding to... find a way to create a long branch without intervening PoW blocks ? 15:42:27 (not intervening PoS blocks from other stakers) 15:42:27 nor* 15:43:05 If so, this seems rather equivalent to PoW miners colluding to orphan other miners' blocks. 15:43:05 Do you mean somethin else ? 15:45:13 basically yes, interleaved PoW blocks are not relevant, just like slashing isn't relevant. The collusion doesn't happen because once you have a proof of stake check/finality against anything "bad" that might happen on chain, you won control already, there is no need to collude to change anything else at that point. You eliminated the threat posed to concentration of control by n ot having influence over potential PoW attacks (like Qubic) and your coins are secured by the very fact that a small minority group always owns most of them 15:47:22 you now have voting power relative to your wealth and that is enough :) 15:47:40 "once you have a proof of stake check/finality" - are we talking about a bog standard hybrid pos/pow thing here (I assumed we were) or something else ? 15:48:11 If something else, what I said above might not apply, sorry. 15:49:31 anything PoS related; once wealth is the arbiter, wealth is the arbiter, that's what makes it attack resistant, most people aren't wealthy and can't infiltrate that requirement, which is what PoS is 15:50:23 Well most people can't get large PoS rigs eihter. Nothing is 100% perfect, but that's not a reason to declare defeat. 15:51:20 The point of a hybrid is to avoid the same thing in the first place, just with words replaced, like once hash power is the arbiter, hash power is the arbiter. 15:52:01 true, but PoW is a logical provable solution to decentralized consensus, proof of wealth isn't, it's explicitly weighting wealth as network control, which is what basically all other human money systems do :) 15:52:05 Yes, if you hash half the hash power, or money, you can go to town. Point is to make it harder. 15:52:41 and hybrid is just PoS with low wealth hamsters spinning on their wheels to feel important 15:53:33 Your argument is the same for pow. People mining on their gaming rig might get lucky from time to time. But they have a chance. 15:54:07 PoW hash rate is also a proxy for wealth, since you seem to have a thing against wealth. 15:54:27 Not a direct a proxy, I'll grant you. 15:54:42 Not as* direct 15:55:41 the difference is in PoW, you are *actually* contributing to distributed consensus with an irreversible activity, relative to your hash power yes, but each hash is equal weight. In PoS, only a few holders actually really matter, and if everyone else stopped staking or tried anything fishy, nothing would happen to the network because most people don't actually matter in that system 15:55:46 just because you say it's irrelevant does not make them irrelevant. 15:55:47 interleaved pow + alternative consensus blocks absolutely removed the issues around 51% attacks and nothing at stake attacks beyond the single block that's being constructed 15:56:03 So while it could well be that raw money is better at getting a highr relative share of PoS stking power than PoW hash rate, it doesn't seem like an obvious showstopper re. centralization. 15:56:19 you can say the exact same thing about pow 15:57:14 if you remove small pow miners it doesnt change anything. consensus is done by the few pools in pow. you might as well call them master nodes. 15:58:12 Now, hybrid pow/pos does improve decentralization, since different people will have more abiilty to get into pow or pos. So you *gain* decentralization ,even if the new scheme (pos in this case) is on its own less decentralized than the existing one. 15:58:13 there is a growing consensus that there is not even a need for inflation in PoS systems because its in the economic self interest of the majority stakeholders to secure the network 15:58:46 that makes it more egalitarian than PoW 15:58:46 hybrid chain is acceptable if we keep PoW 15:59:15 I dont think any miner is agaist staking their reward somehow 15:59:24 Maybe you don't gain much of it if PoS stakers end up being mostly existing PoW miners though. But that's an extreme, and even then you did not lose anything. 15:59:35 (modulo possible bugs in the impl ofc) 15:59:56 the big difference is that pos requires you to already have xmr to participate where as mining does not. 15:59:57 the second difference is that because mining doesn't require you to have any stake in the network it incentivizes bad actors who have no interest in the network itself to participate. e.g. botnets and other 3rd party entities such as qubic. 16:00:09 The only real difference is perhaps is PoW is real work, which can be strategized, gamed, requires constant effort to maintain or shift share, etc - and PoS requires little else but wealth to self perpetuate indefinitely 16:00:31 user0 so keeping pow is essential if there is any form of pos staking 16:00:46 itll be the entry door essentially 16:01:12 pow was only of relevance because there was no other network to bootstrap liquidity from in the satoshi days 16:01:20 stakers need to keep their nodes online. if the economic incentives dont offset that cost, you wont see exponential growth of new nodes coming online to stake and further decentralize the network. 16:01:46 PoS would be egalitarian if stake/wealth concentration was ever egalitarian, but then you just have a Star Trek communism with no need for money because everyone has the same maybe 16:02:15 this is a good point. 16:02:16 its mostly a question of balancing the requirement no 16:02:49 are you arguing that pow as it is today is egalitarian? 16:03:27 Well, monero did try to increase the egalitarianism of it though it is impossible to make it totally so. 16:03:32 it depends on how muc hthe cost is too to act as a node in a PoS network relative to the emission, if you are just using it transaction-ally and not as a store of wealth, the inflation risk is zero and there's no sense to participate in a Pos network as a small/non holder other than as a payment processor 16:03:34 you could pay them in transaction fees. there is almost no cost to running a node 16:03:37 no 16:03:54 making hybrid with pow is a step further toward more option and egalitarianism 16:04:14 everyone participates equally in the ratio of their commitments in both pow and pos. actually, now that i think about it you could construct stake weights in a way which benefits smaller staking wallets proportionally. 16:04:19 it depends on how much the cost is too to act as a node in a PoS network relative to the emission, if you are just using it transaction-ally and not as a store of wealth, the inflation risk is zero and there's no sense to participate in a Pos network as a small/non holder other than using as a payment processor/passthrough 16:04:47 1 monero 1 vote 16:04:53 I have no idea what that means tbh. Then again, economics confuse me so... 16:05:01 can be sybilled just adds rube goldberg layer 16:05:08 and you can aggregate vote for lower cost 16:05:26 p2pool has no incentive for miners to run their own nodes.... which is why it's not taking off. some staking rewards for running a node would really help this a lot. 16:05:42 anyway 1 cpu 1 vote that cpu is likely the price of 1 monero today 16:05:53 so pos would mean no more inflation and very fast almost instant finality 16:06:12 0 inflation pos is blasphemy 16:06:19 I wonder though... if one node can stake one wallet.... a sybil attack would benefit the network a lot by having a shit ton more nodes online 16:06:35 There are chains, like particl, that are staked to death 16:06:35 need to keep inflation for staking reward and miner reward 16:07:15 you have incentive to accumulate the entire supply, like zano 16:07:17 no that's not what anyone is saying 16:07:56 Like, is a PoS Monero (hybrid or otherwise) was the only "good" privacy coin, I'd probably still use it transactionally, but there'd be no sense in me participating in the network, that can be left to the whales 16:07:57 80% of all zano is staked, 60% of particl. Just pure greed 16:08:09 would make all the other Pos chains look bad. transaction fees are incentive enough 16:08:13 Like, if a PoS Monero (hybrid or otherwise) was the only "good" privacy coin, I'd probably still use it transactionally, but there'd be no sense in me participating in the network, that can be left to the whales 16:08:18 its the truth 16:08:21 if people were more greedy we wouldnt be under 51% attack risk 16:08:34 that's your opinion but it still matters for small 🦐 to participate with the 🐋🐳 16:09:25 no it's not because staking would require resources to keep the node online and we cant rely on txs... that's literally why we have a tail emission 16:09:31 if there is no inflation it would be better than bitcoin. there will only ever be 18 million monero 16:09:36 "no sense" because you assume other pos stakers would collude to orphan your stakes ? If not you'd be getting abut the same percentage increase as them, no ? 16:10:11 Similar to how small PoW miners get the same % of the block reward, just very very occasionally, meaning mostly 0 with a lottery. 16:10:19 tbh: there are any number of methods to choose a set of validators... why stick to PoS ? 16:10:50 do you currently mine p2pool now and participate in the network? 16:11:27 btw staking coins in a network isnt greed 16:11:44 I mean it's a valid decision, but no different from deciding not to mine beause you can't be bothered playing the solo mining lottery. 16:11:56 why p2pool is so important ? 16:11:57 it actually increases utility for people to use the network 16:12:15 over other pool I mean 16:12:17 not really no, no sense because the transaction layer is effectively secured/finalized by stake, which is a handful of people that really matter to the finality, so I don't need to be concerned with the network layer, it's all down to those individuals being honest or not. It's a trust system, would be find for passthrough if the other privacy fundamentals were there but I'd have no care about the network of that type/design itself. 16:12:23 Can we have Proof-Of-Node 16:12:25 The amount of TX you forward is your hashrate? 16:12:28 running it on an old computer in a closet is practically free. transaction fees are enough to reward stakers. The whales have the economic incentive to defend the network in any case. 16:12:39 not really no, no sense because the transaction layer is effectively secured/finalized by stake, which is a handful of people that really matter to the finality, so I don't need to be concerned with the network layer, it's all down to those individuals being honest or not. It's a trust system, would be fine for passthrough if the other privacy fundamentals were there but I'd have no care about the network of that type/design itself. 16:12:39 p2pool brings the good of pools (decreases volatility) while not allowing that pool to control what your hash is going to. 16:12:50 Hmm 16:12:53 because it decentralizes hash rates away from big pools but still combines individual hash rates to increase probability of mining blocks. 16:13:17 I see, thanks for the explanation 16:13:42 To be clear, by "participating in the network", you mean either mining oe staking ? 16:14:06 proof of node sound interesting Lol 16:14:44 depending on the pos implementation, staked blocks are not final in what you are implying here. they can be orphaned by other stakers just as in pow. 16:14:55 Staking nodes should get some incentive 16:15:04 but its doubling the security or the attack cost, if not more 16:15:34 literally pos... 16:15:43 they would have to mine 51% plus buy a shitton of xmr and stake it now 16:16:58 and attacking a network where you have coins locked up in stake is probably not the best idea 16:18:31 i cant get gupax working on mac... how do i bypass apple security from not allowing me to run it? 16:18:59 it's not exactly plug and play for p2pool mining 16:19:01 meh the handful of rich holds the majority of staking power, it's not like you can design a system that can tie stake(s) together to an individual to try to make it 1 holder = 1 vote, but basically its 1 XMR = 1 vote, the rich win 10/10 times. They can compete amongst themselves if they want which I doubt, but the money wins the day, and I'm not going to be the money in that syst em, because I don't value PoS systems as meaningfully having any advantage for me over any other non crypto store of wealth 16:19:40 the same holds with pow.... with pools. 16:19:52 do you mineM 16:19:53 ? 16:20:43 noname: we can turn of tail emission if we switch to proof of stake because staking does not cost anything. no need to pay for expensive CPUs and electricity 16:21:05 if hybrid system could reduce 51% attack to nothingless and help incentivize some storing, so it also help making security economic better 16:21:15 yeah I've been mining since 2011, but I don't delegate consensus, i.e. I only mine for p2pool style or solo. I did mine for lukedashjr's pool when I very first started 16:21:45 and you can try to tie it to an individual for sure and some networks have tried but it requires kyc for obvious reasons. alternatively you can tie it to other things which might remain more decentralized but when it comes down to it, 1xmr ==1vote is the most egalitarian thing. 16:22:06 I don't get that. Everybody who stakes gets +X% (first approximation). You're getting less in absolute terms, but it seems like you'd be trying to scuttle yourself out of spite, and then showing other stakers slowly increasing their relative stake as proof of your point, rather than a consequence of your action (or course, you here is generic, since others might be making the same 16:22:11 it does cost things.... but yes less so than pow 16:22:12 we can also win the savings tech game against the bitcoiners. there will only ever be 18 million monero which means one monero should be worth more than one bitcoin as 18 < 21 16:22:13 decision). 16:22:15 1xmr 1 xmr very much like 1 cpu 1 vote. keep both option 16:22:25 1 xmr 1 vote* 16:22:28 practically nothing compared to mining 16:22:47 Moreover, if you stake, and others make that "I don't want to participate", you do increase your rlative stake. So it seems a puzzling decision to me. 16:22:53 so if a hybrid system came out you would stop mining altogether? 16:23:12 I would expect hybrid to keep pow 16:23:18 1 dollar = 1 vote is oligarchy, which is fine if that's what you want too. But yeah, I will not mine or contribute in any way to a system with PoS 16:23:42 and this is why keeping pow and 1 cpu 1 vote is important for balancing id say 16:24:14 the 1 xmr 1 vote also help financially to keep with market average gain and malicious actor who use this market average to growth their mean of attack 16:24:44 That’s a good idea 16:24:48 i dont care for marketcap as the priority, xmr should be spent. the only reason for a higher marketcap is that the network becomes more useful to more people. i.e. higher value capacity 16:24:58 what is wrong with oligarchy in this case? obviously the oligarchs want to keep their money safe. much more so then the plebs as they have much more money 16:25:17 There need to be multiple layers of security. PoW+PoS. 16:25:37 sure xmr should be spend, but this 51% attack show that we suffer from an unbalancing economically when it come to securing blockchain through thermodynamic in a very sounding financial world 16:25:40 current rule of choosing the canonical chain is choosing the chain with the highest cum_diff, right? cum_diff is the summation of all the difficulty thresholds blocks had to overcome 16:25:41 let's say we choose the canonical chain based on the PoW hash. 16:25:43 in this scenario, nobody can comfortably keep building a private chain and be guaranteed that they can force a reorg whenever they wish to. they will have to publish blocks as fast as possible. otherwise, an honest miner can knock one of their blocks by having better PoW hash, thus invalidating the rest of the private chain. 16:25:45 how does a fresh node choose the canonical chain? 16:25:47 * let's say prior to the rule change, the blockchain progress is checkpointed. so, effectively, we can treat as if it's a brand new chain (in terms of block generation) 16:25:49 * ask peers for blocks, one by one 16:25:51 * if different blocks found at the same height, the one with the better PoW hash wins 16:26:12 i honestly disagree theres an oligarchy here too... xmr is the most equally distributed coin in existence 16:26:16 I mean I get what you’re trying to say, but monero has been stagnant in price for a long time and we do need the price for monero to go up 16:26:28 if you like the fundamentals of oligarchy, nothing wrong I guess. I got into crypto for decentralization. If it doesn't offer it, then I already get oligarchy bucks in my normal paychecks :) 16:27:46 if you really want to win: PoS. end tail emission. No inflation. there will only ever be 18 million monero. give stakers the tx fees. bitcoin is finished if we do this. 16:27:55 barthman, Im happy you understand this.. its not about making people rich or anything. Need *some* mechanic incentive at this point 16:28:37 i think you really need to take a breath... pos does not all of a sudden put xmr control under the hands of a few oligarchs who are allowed to censor transactions 16:29:03 while its a risk, the hybrid solution sound very good for all parties 16:29:16 but the fiat oligarchy inflates the plebs away while ours would be value preserving. we dont have state power and guns to force it down peoples throats. so we attract them with zero inflation 16:29:22 outside the extremist of one or the other solution maybe 16:29:23 hard disagree... xmr's emission curve is extremely skewed towards early adopters 16:29:23 but right now, I'm interested in everyone's opinion on my idea about using PoW hash to prevent reorgs 16:29:31 the biggest risk with a hybrid system is the implementation 16:30:16 I dont understand how zero inflation would make miner mine and people to stake, transaction fee only ? 16:30:32 if everyone early hodled, the price of xmr would be way higher. based on price vs btc alone I would say it's much more decentralized 16:30:53 If all the PoW options go away, I'll reconsider if it had any advantages over my non-crypto options, but I got into Monero for the entirety of what was in the whitepaper. I don't really have a say in what happens to Monero other than my meager contributions; if it becomes uninteresting to me, so be it. Everyone is always looking for their best options of course 16:30:54 I agree there 16:30:57 you mean checkpoints? 16:32:14 How would that work? 16:32:32 yes 16:34:31 As an urgent fix, why not increase the tx fees to increase the security budget? A Monero tx should not cost less than 2 cents or even 10. Monero having too little security budget is the reason for this shit show. You can't have a low mcap decentralized PoW coin that is secure but also low inflation and low fee. Impossible. 16:36:22 checkpoints are inherently centralized unless you are actually talking about anchoring to a bigger chain like Bitcoin or Ethereum 16:36:25 problem with that is botnet will reap out most of the profit that legit eddicated miner should take 16:37:10 hi585858: there is barely a cost to running a validator compared to mining. Because you don't need to buy expensive CPU hardware + pay for electricity. its in the self interest of large holder to protect the network with their stake. so transaction fees are enough for compensation stakers 16:37:20 hi585858: there is barely a cost to running a validator compared to mining. Because you don't need to buy expensive CPU hardware + pay for electricity. its in the self interest of large holders to protect the network with their stake. so transaction fees are enough for compensation stakers 16:37:38 hi585858: there is barely a cost to running a validator compared to mining. Because you don't need to buy expensive CPU hardware + pay for electricity. its in the self interest of large holders to protect the network with their stake. so transaction fees are enough for compensating stakers 16:37:45 im not against PoS system, but PoW give more chance for the little guy to speak and enter 16:38:01 in a world where botnet doesnt leech everything tho... 16:38:25 1 botnet is 1000 miner less and 10,000 of their direct social circle who wont heard positively about xmr 16:38:40 botnet create negative class of people who will hate xmr also 16:38:47 running a node still costs.... for some networks to enable staking rewards, there's a minimum performance and uptime requirement. this is where the cost can be quantified. 16:39:12 hi585858: it is better for the little guy to have inflation free money. practically the little guy is losing money while mining. somebody has to pay for cpus and electricity. its a negative sum game 16:39:35 it is extremely low. round it down to zero / tx fees 16:39:46 If the economic never growth yes. This is why its primordial for XMR preservation to fallow market average 16:40:48 now only about 10country can mine xmr without loss, and half of them are complete tier world 16:41:00 Back in 2018 random X made sense, because monero price was still increasing at that time and the electricity cost were lower back then. But now with electricity prices going up from 12 cents a kilowatt to around 17 a kilowatt it’s simply not worth with it unfortunately to mine monero. 16:41:27 no way... spec out a vps that i can use to run a node and lmk what it costs 16:41:31 i honestly disagree theres an oligarchy here too... xmr is the most equally distributed coin in existence <<>> how do you know this? 16:41:35 if everyone early hodled, the price of xmr would be way higher. based on price vs btc alone I would say it's much more decentralized <<>> there are many coins with concentrated holders that don't have a high price. What it allows is for them to manipulate the market 16:41:44 exact, we lost european miner, american getting slowly out too 16:42:26 sure but we cant go back in time, need to find a solution 16:42:42 I see 16:42:43 never going to support anchoring Monero to BTC/ETH 16:42:45 I think it should still work without checkpointing 16:42:47 let's say at block 4000000, the chain will switch to PoW hash rule 16:42:49 then, a brand new node will follow the rule of highest `cum_diff` until block 4000000... then, it'll have to crawl the network for a bit to find the canonical chain again 16:43:00 No same.. Im very against being a vassal 16:43:17 if monero has to work, we has to keep our total sovereignty 16:44:14 noname: we can make it so you can run it from home behind a tor hidden service. so practically free. because of stake we can address eclipse / sybil attacks. 16:44:20 this is the most important point to be able to get into top 5 imo .. 16:44:50 if you wanted to devise a new coin network with fair distribution over time, how would you do it? without kyc. 16:44:51 i think it would look something like monero. 16:44:53 additionally, if you wanted it to be more well distributed over time, you would need high usage and low but steady prices so people don't feel like they missed out and will continue to participate. 16:44:55 basically, only monero has these features of all coins in existence. 16:50:35 monero is to get used, not to be speculated with 16:50:41 i gotta run but my position after looking at the proposals is that im for adding pos consensus but mainly keeping pow coin distribution. only a small portion of rewards for stakers. 16:51:18 the local mining proposal with increase bandwidth requirements is also interesting but might have issues that we haven't thought about 16:51:35 but is definitely the faster fix 16:52:02 btw every hardfork monero has... is a checkpoint. so we do have them just not that frequently 16:52:15 early days it used to be every 6 months 16:52:46 yup, back in the cryptonote pow days 16:53:47 Every release, not just hardforks 16:54:57 definitively dealing out the botnet should be in the package solution too 16:55:23 the leeching has cause too much damage long run 16:56:11 reminder its not to make people more money but growth the pool of reel participant who will reinvest into security 16:56:59 the argument for botnet I've always heard is, they're supposedly our safety net against big brother government/corpo datacenter mining 16:57:14 there is some short term truth to it 16:57:21 long run they acting like a cancer 16:57:34 preventing dedicated people to voice for monero 16:57:47 depends on if qubic is classified as a botnet 16:58:04 I would, but we have *allies* botnet, even if no cancer are allies 16:58:22 If not, then qubic could easily have had like 80+% of the hashrate 16:58:40 Are the 80mh p2pool miners botnets? 16:58:57 wont fix this this with single solution but multi facet action 16:59:09 What happens if we ban those? If we dont, what stops other botnets from running their own p2pools? 16:59:26 def something to think about 16:59:39 not saying we should jump into hardfork now 16:59:56 file ima_940b37c.jpeg too big to download (2193398 > allowed size: 1000000) 16:59:57 ima_940b37c.jpeg 16:59:58 but we need to reconsider the malicious action botnet are doing to us in the long run 17:00:01 Fixing my internet so I can mine 17:00:26 it has essentially make qbic attack possible 17:01:18 is the enemy botnets? Large miners? Id i fairly acquire 500 ryzen rigs, is that also to be punished? 17:01:48 large miner arent ennemy, botnet, who stole hardware and electricity and dont reinvest, prevent more people to come etc 17:01:59 large miner are just dedicated miner with more money 17:02:00 how do you know the difference 17:02:14 Ie, is the 80mh p2pool miner a botnet? 17:02:15 It seems like the worst is over for now and the monero community is calming down. The price of monero has jumped back to 253. I honestly expected worse, so it’s good sign that the community hasn’t just given up. 17:02:32 P2pool had 800mh appear and then leave. Is that a botnet? 17:02:35 hard to know, but there is way, like making thing more difficult so only dedicated person could mine 17:02:38 Is the talk about PoS purely hypothetical, or is there a real idea of a PoS system that would actually work with Monero? Is there going to be minimum stake? How much? Will I need to ensure 10000% impeccable uptime on my home run node or risk losing money? 17:02:56 Everything is theoretical at this point 17:03:12 ofrnxmr why is no inflation blasphemy? ⛪️ 17:03:29 translation: don't get your hype up 17:03:37 low quality bait 17:03:49 i am serious. 17:03:54 no you aren't 17:04:03 I guess transaction fee wont get people to keep mining 17:04:07 inflation is not necessary for proof of stake. 17:04:11 no inflation pos is blasphemy. Hoarder whales will buy up the supply and never release their grip over the network (like particl). (Particl has inflation btw) 17:04:42 Collecting tx fees in the stake = the supply migrates from users to stakers 17:04:43 and this is why hybrid would prevent such extreme thing imo 17:04:58 actually why does this matter? 17:05:19 xmr works at 100000 and 100 17:05:24 no really 17:05:32 this is false statement 17:05:36 Because if i stake 100% of the network, and youre a user who spends your coins, i accumulate all of the monero by doing nothing 17:05:38 inflation changes nothing. hoarders gonna hoard (and have an incentive to not destroy the their asset) 17:05:55 so its best to have no inflation 17:05:57 monero wont work under XYV price because qbic or another malicious actor would just be able to break the security 17:06:20 yes so the solution is to have no inflation 17:06:21 I mean using PoW 17:06:38 it need a minimum price to make attacker unable economically to hurt us 17:07:08 That’s already the case. People use monero to literally launder money and bitcoin all the time. There’s going to be big wallet holders, but that’s the case for literally any monetary system in existence. 17:07:09 its a spectrum 17:07:50 exact 17:08:02 and it only really ever becomes a problem because of high inflation. that is the real reason PoS has a bad rep. most PoS coins have too high inflation 17:08:18 Buying monero doesnt earn you tx fees or inflation 17:08:19 when it should be zero 17:09:25 One guy literally laundered 300 million dollars of bitcoin to monero causing the price of monero to jump 50% for a short amount of time 17:09:46 i want primarily an anonymous internet money. not a "redistribute wealth from the rich" program, regardless if i want that or not too. having both worlds may be not feasible. 17:09:47 and they didnt earn any txfees or emission 17:10:15 Right ? Kinda same tho 17:10:46 True, but the point is there is always going to be wealthy people who hold monero. 17:11:07 and right now xmr is not very accessible despite low price Lol 17:11:45 inflation hits the poor much more. so its more egalitarian to get rid of it 17:12:35 egalitarian or not xmr wont survive another 10 year in those condition lol 17:12:52 I think it came second after network security 17:13:26 That’s just isn’t going to happen. If we don’t increase the price of monero. Monero doesn’t survive. Good luck securing a network when monero is only like a hundred dollars 17:13:36 if it mean that some whale will mass xmr but we will have usable private internet money in 50 year so let it be 17:14:27 It’s poor vs rich fight, some want privacy some want equality 17:14:54 point is having privacy on a global monetary system, the egalitarian part is a bit out of the context imo 17:15:04 as long its usable by everyone 17:15:12 it is also more secure. 17:15:18 Agreed 17:15:45 + beats bitcoiner store of value. 17:16:39 Just burn tx fees 17:16:40 as long xmr is divisible into 0.0001 and you can buy sandwhich or planet ticket out of terror without compromising your identity, it work 17:16:47 plane* 17:18:53 fighting to get rich out of monero but dying in the process is worthless 17:19:02 we dont win point for that 17:19:36 What’s the point of having a currency, if you won’t be able to make any transactions, because you couldn’t secure the network 17:20:03 exact 17:20:23 actually 1 piconero is 10^-12 or 0.000000000001 17:21:08 the egalitarian part need to take a breath. Not saying to go all in into sucking blackrock but there is exemple to take frm bitcoin or eth 17:21:31 they havent get stupidly threaten 12 year into the game 17:22:20 taking exemple of(without being vassal of them or institution) 17:22:22 its just the counter to the people crying they will leave if we switch from PoW because it supposedly gives the little guy a voice. (which just isnt the case ) 17:23:22 hybrid seem a good way but not sure about integration and security risk 17:23:23 the memetics of no inflation means we kill 2 birds with 1 stone. bitcoiners in shambles 17:23:54 keep in mind electricity cost will eventually get down with fusion ... 17:24:18 if we plan for monero to be here in 100 year then we have to consider pow wont be that hard in the future 17:24:37 h​i585858 if electricity costs goes to zero because of fusion then PoW is pointless anyway. 17:24:49 wont go to zero because it has a cost too 17:24:59 i was a PoW maxi too but its just nostalgia at this point to speak frankly 17:25:00 and a finite number of production, but just wayy bigger than now 17:25:37 hm 17:27:13 moneroconsensus.info by rucknium got hit with 504 too many users. Anywhere else I can track chain data with reliable info? 17:29:28 I don’t understand this hatred of this idea that monero should only be used for its utility and shouldn’t be an investment for some reason. Why can’t it be both? I mean Bitcoin is held by plenty of normal people, but you don’t see them crying that Bitcoin is at 120,000 17:30:01 I vote for a psy op social attack 17:30:11 or the anarchist faction is really fucking dumb 17:31:24 its pretty usual now that fake account are use on social media to manipulate public opinion with very real result 17:31:31 states financed 17:31:40 Xmr failed to attract miners, btc was successful; pow is good if you can incentivise them properly 17:31:43 It can be both. But currencies (in general) die from lack of usage 17:32:02 botnet prevent miner to came, lethargism and inaction have hurt us 17:32:26 remember when we switch to randomX so new many people came 17:32:35 but faded fast 17:32:47 Don’t talk about botnets is forbidden 17:33:07 Lol, real this is a complete cancer that enable today problem to happen, with other thing for sure 17:33:16 Yes, but the fact that monero has utility gives an actual reason to use it unlike bitcoin. 17:33:32 Bitcoin transitioned from a currency to a balance sheet asset a while ago 17:33:52 fusion: tying yourself to some future tech that has been 20 years away for the last 60 years but that will solve all problems is peak delusion. the price of energy doesn't even change the relative picture anyway. btw monero fees were set too low because devs thought the value go up lol. monero can hard fork. if it good happens then we'll think about it. now you need to prepare for the worst case. 17:34:12 Monero can do both if there was enough incentive to not use it just as a washing machine 17:34:17 fusion: tying yourself to some future tech that has been 20 years away for the last 60 years but that will solve all problems is peak delusion. the price of energy doesn't even change the relative picture anyway. btw monero fees were set too low because devs thought the value go up lol. monero can hard fork. if good shit happens then we'll think about it. now you need to prepare f 17:34:19 or the worst case. 17:34:22 listen I can aknowledge we are at a crossroad 17:34:29 thing has to change or we will disapear 17:34:46 maybe not today or tomorrow but if we dont change there is no xmr in 10 year 17:35:01 preserving privacy should be number 1 thing 17:35:09 everything else doesnt matter 17:35:16 We will disappear as few idealist want to mine on their rpi 17:35:52 im still pro PoW but I can listen and understand change 17:36:07 as long as monero remain private and fees are not too high, don't fukken worry mate. we'll use the shit out of it. even more so if the number goes up the fuck up. 17:36:25 Dual pow + pos , is ideal situation to keep everyone happy 17:36:33 this 17:36:42 after dev has the last word on feasability 17:37:10 (I will be formally proposing smth on the 20th, so don’t make any rash decisions before then. 17:37:11 Back to my hiatus) 17:39:23 I think there was very real situation in humanity where early human civilization or tribe has to stop being egalitarian for the overall preservation 17:39:35 we are there 17:41:06 as long we keep privacy and soreignty, you have my go Lol 17:41:20 sovereignty* 17:43:54 spirobel without inflation the amount of coins will decrease due to loss 17:44:24 Also the expression is not kill 2 birds with 1 stone 17:44:41 It is pet 2 cats with 1 hand 17:50:30 They are mining empty blocks now 17:51:07 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/bAfggsiwaZFMZeOWLQWbMQcL 17:51:43 Or it’s just while reorg ? 17:53:23 They mine empty block because they propagate faster 17:58:05 which makes it even better 17:58:20 (dgently) 17:58:37 Nodes should ignore consecutive empty blocks or if it’s not mining enough txs in mempool 18:00:09 what about no inflation pow then? I was joking earlier about that .. implicit stake in the network 18:00:45 ofc it's pet 2 cats with one hand lol 18:02:43 ^^ see here.. but honestly, no idea about feasibility. and decrease in coins due to loss. 18:02:45 but Pos no inflation seems very shortsighted at least. price will spike, people sell, consolidate the network to any rich entity who wants to control it 18:13:20 imagine if getting rid of economic benefits and qubic still does what it does... i guess then it's clear that behind the project is a state actor, since there is no profit motive anymore 18:14:16 Their economic benefit is marketing their shitcoins which they can make money from 18:16:07 They will keep doing it till they have reached peak marketing, like double spend confirmed by exchanges and a insane amount of confirmation needed to trust xmr txs 18:16:52 Either ways, only thing that can help rn is GF renting hash or some botnet mining on legit side 18:21:50 is it possible to penalize block reward if re-orgs have happened? 18:25:16 no 18:26:08 Some people are having fun apparently 18:26:09 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/xmr.mx/auzvapZbpRoLFboJxwkyYfHM 18:27:58 Useless 18:28:19 A bump in their journey 18:28:27 Towards domination 18:33:43 <7​77c:matrix.org> Is it mentally retarded if u keep funds in xmr with the qubic attacks? 18:34:15 <7​77c:matrix.org> I got a large chunk of my funds in xmr and i cba to lose / devalue it 18:34:41 Yes it’s mental and we are in same boat 18:34:44 Plenty of peoples have a large chunk of XMR 18:35:18 <7​77c:matrix.org> Then i am swapping 18:35:26 The more it dump the more I will slurp, so at the end it's fine 18:37:48 <7​77c:matrix.org> I hope sergey gets cancer he make me lose a lot of money 18:37:55 Good luck my friend, hope it works well and you can buy 10x more when it’s bottom 18:39:52 1 xmr = 1 xmr 18:40:36 not enough people for seeing this low price 18:40:54 the economic benefits need to be adequate to the cost / selfish utility of the stakers. the cost of staking compared to mining is practically zero and it provides the benefit to the holder to be more assured in the network security. no need to worry about hashrate and drama on the timeline when you sit in the whale group chat controlling 51% of the supply 18:43:30 lol, i'm not sure how to read that?! is that a yey or nay argument? sounds not good to me unless of course you envision yourself having a seat in that whale group chat :D 18:43:33 Cost to acquire coins is zero, wow didn’t know 18:43:48 how does little old me get into a whale group chat? 18:44:41 You can just disclose your 1% coin with carrot viewkey and join them 18:44:49 1 xmr = 1 vote 18:45:01 and you can aggregate multiple holder into 1 vote 18:45:24 great, want to join my staking pool? 18:45:32 the cost to stake coins that are already owned is practically zero. it is assumed that the people most interested in the networks security own coins 18:45:36 Oof don’t put salt on ppl who dispise holding monero, but want vendors to accept it 🤣 18:45:43 Oof don’t put salt on ppl who despise holding monero, but want vendors to accept it 🤣 18:47:07 Its time to push some faction outside, they are literally killing us from the inside 18:47:09 next up, xmr-rich-list and shareholder meeting on which tx to approve 18:47:26 why not if people want to share their key 18:47:45 who are you to decide how people should use their monero.. this is the problem we have for so many year trying to be so puritain 18:48:01 monero should be use exclusively like that or this way... 18:48:02 And there is zero coin emission ? No coins available in market for someone else to acquire? 18:48:03 is it too much to ask for this shitshow to be brought into #monero instead 18:48:07 this is #monero-lounge 18:48:33 we expect some higher standard of constructive criticism here 18:48:36 and also relevant topics 18:48:41 there is also -off-topic :) 18:48:46 Research Lounge has turned into ….. sorry I will stop my rants 18:49:12 * monero-offtopic 18:49:38 lets work on hybrid pos/pow 18:50:28 <7​77c:matrix.org> Monero getting CUCKED by a shitty alt coin 18:50:30 <7​77c:matrix.org> Imagine 18:50:48 has turned into ... lights a cigar ... 18:50:49 Cucked by botnets to be precise 18:51:38 I think discution is at the right place, we need change because its pretty bad to get fuck by a frauds 18:51:52 it shows multiple hole is our hull 18:52:15 We need PHDs to discuss in MRL 18:52:24 basically 18:55:15 I understand its not high standard atm, and pretty sure most non pro here will stfu once the concern people will talk 18:55:42 we are just at a critical level of realization 18:58:42 lets say you are a wale right now, if you wanted to contribute to the security of the network you would have to sell part of your xmr to mine at a loss. From this most interested in the security of the network participant's perspective no inflation PoS would be better 19:00:48 lets say you are a whale right now, if you wanted to contribute to the security of the network you would have to sell part of your xmr to mine at a loss. From this most interested in the security of the network participant's perspective no inflation PoS would be better 19:03:31 proof of phd? 19:08:10 having to sell xmr to make it more secure (or having to allocate money to Lisa Su + electricity that could be put into the chart) means the rewards for mining go down as well. 19:08:56 its just more hoops to jump through for nostalgia 19:09:25 it leads to net lower security and growth 19:14:19 P2pool nodes can propagate a full block with just a 1 KiB header, why can't all pools do that to fight against selfish mining? 19:17:13 "security of the network", you first need to define a threat to that security. to me, it's censorship, that does not go away with "no inflation PoS". 19:19:44 everyone who holds large amounts of xmr agrees with this. everyone who has access or can buy cpus not so much. So why do we have to reduce our exposure to xmr to buy cpus to make it more secure? 19:20:35 its just an extra hoop, that adds a negative feedback loop 19:21:23 it's your money. if you have a bicycle, do you ask: Why do i have to buy a lock? No, of course not. 19:21:55 that analogy makes no sense. 19:22:31 we should take it elsewhere, i agree with syntheticbird 19:22:37 you are saying that cpus are the lock, but in reality its the people who control the cpus 19:24:42 we can just determine by FIAT! that the people who can say what the valid blocks are should be the monero holders and not random people with cpus 19:30:51 "So why do we have to reduce our exposure to xmr to buy cpus to make it more secure?" << I asked satoshi and am waiting for him to get back to me 19:35:36 satoshi spoke to me last night. he commanded me to tell you guys we should switch monero to no inflation PoS and convert the bitcoiners with the phrase: "there will only ever be 18 million monero" 19:35:53 so that the world shall have uncensorable p2p cash and everyone can live in peace and happiness 20:03:19 I have some pretty good news. The monero price is recovering and is around 258 a coin right now 20:06:20 I mean it’s not great, but monero hit 240 when the news broke, so it could’ve been far worse 20:09:38 I dont think the problem lie in the short term event but what make it possible in the first place, xmr should be like 5k to be completely safe 20:11:21 are exchanges allowing withdrawals/deposits? 20:12:08 Idk unfortunately 20:43:35 <3​21bob321:monero.social> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/1mod130/psa_qubic_is_lying_they_dont_have_50_hash_rate/ 20:43:37 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Would you say this is accurate sequence of events ? 21:09:39 Don't know if this was shared before: https://qubic.org/blog-detail/historic-takeover-complete-qubic-miners-now-secure-monero-network 21:12:20 omfg 21:13:10 <3​21bob321:monero.social> PR department 21:13:22 At this point this is a propaganda war and i dont know if we are winning 21:13:38 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Nioc its over 21:14:11 We only win if we get through the next through marathons with no major reorgs 21:14:47 just increase the blocktime. less re-orgs. #winning 21:15:24 so thet finally ran of money? 21:15:25 show is done? 21:15:42 so they finally ran out of money? 21:15:43 show is done? 21:16:16 They are still pulsating rent hashrate 21:17:25 yeah this rental market is killer 21:29:27 hbs I am having dinner rn so not clicking your link :) 21:30:03 sounds like a tweet they made, they should go into politics 21:31:25 16% atm according to https://moneroconsensus.info/ (last 6 hours interval) 21:31:54 was 42.5% at peak 21:35:55 We will not get through the next marathon without major reorgs 21:36:31 They will definitely be able to pull off more major reorgs, the point is not that they can't do that, the point is that pulling off major reorgs here and there is not evidence of a 51% attack 21:36:57 Unknown peak was indeed 42.5%. 21:36:59 There part of unknown but not 100% of it. 21:37:01 There peak was something like 30-35% 21:37:03 But yeah, over 30% you can produce reorg relatively easily (kind of gambling way) 21:37:23 Its evidence of selfish mining, their state goals are to orphan all other blocks outside of their pool which they cannot do without 51% of the hash rate 21:39:44 their whole goal was to print 51 blocks out of 100 and call this “51% attack” because hamsters didn’t care 21:39:56 Yeah, thats the actual goal 21:40:31 But still, they stated that they would "dominate" the network with a 51% attack to secure all mining rewards 21:41:19 From their own stated goals they have not succeeded yet, their actual goal of getting a bunch of free press from people who misinterpret the data that qubic puts out, has probably been successful 21:42:09 YEah, there FUD goals is successful imo 21:43:33 I will say however the longer they continue on this attempt the more holes in their story appear even to people unfamiliar with the details. Such as if their 51% attack is successful as is claimed, why are all blockchain rewards not going to them? 21:43:51 Or, why are they stopping the attack as soon as it is allegedly successful, then starting again 21:43:57 But still they proved a point. 21:43:57 Monero price need to be a lot higher (for the good hashrate to be also a lot higher) 21:44:15 The only point I've seen proved is that selfish mining can orphan blocks 21:44:45 Which is not that groundbreaking or crazy 21:45:09 Because they are burning there miner money to do it. 21:45:11 So they pulse as needed when they think they might have a chance of producing a reorg 21:45:56 But renting hashrate is not profitable, you get at best half of what you put in. 21:46:09 they won’t say it to their sheeps; they keep saying that attack is free. 21:46:26 its not about profit, its about hashrate, lmao. 21:46:35 Yeah, the attack is free for the admin because he use his sheep reward 21:46:44 think of it as a marketing budget 21:47:25 Their own users rent hash rate and talk about it to each other 21:47:41 it is not, rented hashpower is major share of their peak hashrate 21:48:25 I specifier "admin" 21:48:27 There miner pay the price but they think they will get better reward with that qubic token 21:48:29 Sure, but what I'm saying is think of the loss they are sustaining by renting hash power not as just strictly an unprofitable endeavor, but as a marketing budget to attract new buyers to the coin and raise the value of their bags 21:48:30 their “free” hashrate is 10-15% of the network, if not less 21:49:04 But yeah, I could be very well spending from his how stash too 21:49:42 If they can make more buyers perceive them as successful in the claimed goals of their project they can raise the MC of their coin, which means more money for the early investors 21:49:47 ponzi shit 21:49:58 Yeah, that's what they try to do becuase the qubit price have to go up for that to continue to work for them, specially in one week, after there halving... 21:50:04 it's probably why there all in now 21:50:19 Well, it would be one thing if they were actually reaching these goals objectively, but they exaggerate and half truth as much as they can to build hype 21:50:38 Yeah, it's marketting 21:50:53 so it have hype and misleading data 21:50:58 its not halving, its last call before ponzi collapse 21:51:45 and yes, with the halving they have a time frame that they need this 51% attack to be successful within, in order for the price to pump to a certain point that mining maintains the same profit levels as it currently does 21:52:23 yep 21:52:24 They're essentially riding on this "51% attack" to pump the price up to something like double (maybe less now since it already went up a bit) where its at now. 21:52:50 So they have a short time frame and large pressure to make this attack appear as successful as possible otherwise the castle will crumble 22:00:01 🍿 22:16:42 so are exchanges not allowing monero withdraws because of the attack or because they don't have any... 22:23:33 Probably because of the attack, some CEX are waiting for 40 confirmation before accepting a swap 22:32:28 Some closed before reorgs started 22:32:48 Qubic is up around 20% and they have been stuck in that range for hours now. Interestingly qubic this month is only up around 10%. Total qubic is up 86% from July. So qubic growth is slowing overall.