00:00:03 I'm not disagreeing with that. I guess I'm more saying, fcmp verification times look scary as fuck 00:00:05 There's some added complexity with batching being possible with multiple transactions in some cases? It's not clear to me. 00:00:35 Byte for byte, its notbad 00:00:43 Looks the same as ringct to me 00:02:04 On ringct, i can sync ~1-1.5 blocks per second at ~200kb avg blocks. I verify abt 250kb per second on fcmp 00:02:16 The biggest difference is in tx generation 00:02:43 Takes 7mins to create a 128in 00:02:46 that's a weird comparison to use if TXes are much bigger. the amount of data needed to be processed will obviously go up in that case 00:03:07 They are onlt much bigger at low inputs 00:03:53 Like 7kb for a 2in (5x size), but a 128in is like 110kb (maybe 10-15%larger) 00:04:48 I'm looking at github but do you have a link handy for ringct verification times? 00:05:17 no, just syncing mainnet on the same device that i'm spamming fcmp 00:05:43 Post checkpoints, log-level 1 on mainnet shows me abt 1.5blocks per second 00:05:43 there's a cahrt somewhere from when ring size was last being discussed, I'm sure 00:05:49 there's a chart somewhere from when ring size was last being discussed, I'm sure 00:06:28 berman said he wanted to run the bumbers at some point, so i would assume they arent available 00:06:34 anyway I think a lot of the sync time is disk IO? cause cuprate is like twice as fast at initial sync than monerod and I don't think it's cause they verify transactions so much faster 00:07:02 Also need to test on hdd. Its hypothesised that fcmp will do better on hdd 00:07:29 Cuprate is much faster for various reasons, such as usinf 64bit accellerated libs 00:07:53 Theres a pr on monero to use the accellerated versions as well, increased sync 40% in my testing 00:07:56 For a thing, it should not have to forever seek to verify right 00:08:06 It doesnt have any effect on fcmp though 00:09:00 Wdym? 00:10:09 With current sheme dont you have to check the tx in the decoys (all of them) when you verify? Some new, some old... 00:14:10 Yeah, has to do db reads for decoys 00:14:28 Fcmp doesnt have to do that, which could lead to faster hdd sync 00:15:24 Orders of magnitude faster yes. 00:15:25 Monero should host a bootstrap from the beginning til the fcmp switch. 00:15:46 That should fix all sync issue for hdd I think 00:17:39 My hdd is failing, otherwise i'd check :P 00:19:51 With the current sheme your constantly seeking, so you have seek time + time for the thing to bring the sector to the head once it landed on the track, with can be instant up to one full rotation (5400.. 7200.. Rpm) 00:21:34 For each uncached decoys 01:01:34 Wil need to check for pre fcmp inputs though? 01:03:08 Eh.. my testnet doesnt have any/many of those :P 01:03:23 Yes, its why I proposed a bootstrap 01:23:03 The US Gov has nuclear powered data centers. They will always be able to 51% attack cheaply. 01:24:18 endor00: anything other than pow is just hype == anything other than pos that uses the ([CPU / asic / gpu + electricity] coin as eligible stake) is just hype 01:26:08 That which can be asserted without the evidence can be dismissed without evidence 01:26:22 PoW is hype 01:29:45 Should I get ready for POS and buy 2% of the supply? 01:30:07 I'm not sure how comfortable I am with Monero's security being tied to holding Monero as opposed to expending something in the physical world 01:30:39 Would PoS limit the sort of attacks that we're experiencing now? 01:31:24 How big of a whale would you have to be to disrupt the network? 01:31:43 yes. it would be an order of magnitude more expensive. we had the discussion the in the mrl meeting 01:31:51 Ah, link? 01:32:28 anyone know when the mrl meeting logs will be posted? 01:32:57 I get that man, but only huge cryptocurrency’s like bitcoin could survive something like that. There is compelling evidence that suggest it’s not possible anymore to do a 51% attack anymore for Bitcoin, because the cost to do so is outrageous and it would require a total of 7 million asics, which is more than currently available on market. 01:32:59 https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-ethereum-51-percent-attacks-coin-metrics-research 01:33:07 Yeah, the rich would own the thing. Meaning you have to have more money than them to 51% it 01:33:22 https://libera.monerologs.net/monero-research-lab/20250813#c557536 01:33:42 thanks 01:34:05 Except if the rich are malicious (state actor buying there way in, faster than setting up mining rig and no need to micro manage them) 01:34:36 I'm no expert, but I think to attack PoS, you have to PUMP THE BAGS of the existing holders 01:34:48 It looks like PoS discussion didn't begin at that point 01:35:06 Exacly 01:35:17 So the 51% who sold... They leave with a fat pile of BTC/fiat 01:35:19 Easier for state actors, harder for the common asshole 01:35:35 And they can just take their bag and spin up a new PoS privacy chain 01:35:40 Rinse and repeat 01:35:47 The key insight is this 01:35:49 I think if Monero does Proof-of-Stake, we need to invent a way to disincentivize exchanges from staking their customer's coins, or we just get back to the large mining pool problem except now it is centralized exchanges beholden to government. 01:36:03 In pure PoW the cost to attack and the cost to defend are 1:1 01:36:17 PoS is asymmetric. It favors defense 01:36:23 You have to pump their bags 01:37:03 The question is who is going to get an easy grab of the network? 01:37:48 Coin distribution is more of a problem if you're doing pure PoS from the Genesis block 01:37:52 Less if you migrate from PoW 01:37:58 At the end, cex and some elite/state will own xmr, sound good 01:38:20 As long as they need xmr 01:38:44 no inflation 01:39:34 In PoW, you need to pay ongoing maintenance costs to continue holding your "share" of the network defense cost. In PoS, the ongoing cost is lower, which means people will stake and never have an incentive to unstake. Could we add some sort of meaningful maintenance to staking? 01:40:21 Why would the exchange not stack it. If its not some way to control the network 01:40:37 They are already online 24/7 01:40:56 It cost nothing for them, reward or no 01:41:13 give them the tx fees. that also gives them an incentive to make sure people actually use the network 01:42:13 Transaction fees don't scale. In practice we know users will migrate to coins with lower fees. 01:42:40 Bitcoin is going to have that problem once the block emission runs out. 01:43:23 Bitcoin rely on TW/h 01:43:25 the less incentive the better. only truly committed participants should be staking. the others can be bribed in any case. (similar to opportunistic hashrate switching to qubic or getting rented by them) 01:43:28 That have a cost 01:43:48 Stalking have no cost (for exchange s) 01:44:06 Transaction fees work as a cost to attack the network via spam attacks. They don't work well as a financial incentive to secure the network, not when users will switch to another network to have lower fees. 01:44:59 financial incentives dont in the form of staking rewards or mining rewards dont really secure the network. 01:45:11 financial incentives in the form of staking rewards or mining rewards dont really secure the network. 01:45:31 opportunistic hashrate or stakers can be bribed 01:46:03 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. Currently we have proof of stake that you have to pay for instead of receiving a reward. (and it still works bec 01:46:05 ause people believe in monero so much) 01:46:46 Stalkers can serve there own interrest. And its easy way in 01:46:47 Blaclrock can scoup 10% of the supply tomorrow 01:46:55 Atleast they will not lend it to market makers 😅 and short it to ground 01:47:16 Problem with the pow model is only the price 01:47:42 Blackrock is not interested in your tiny coin 01:47:50 would be more expensive than buying the hashrate 01:48:00 If xmr was at its just price, we would not have issue 01:48:09 Current pow is the problem 01:48:29 There are potential threat actors willing to attack Monero at a loss. Qubic is believed to be mining at a loss. A government might also be willing to perform an attack against the coin. Giving defenders a financial incentive to secure the network probably helps more than giving them nothing. 01:48:31 Hashrate require time, expertise, employees, etcetc 01:48:45 Pos require pressing a button on kucoin 01:48:51 There are coins in existence with no inflation and PoS-like consensus such as Nano. 01:48:58 Qubic has no cost, they are burning vc funds and greedy miners who are paid in their shitcoins 01:49:28 Atleast they will be staked and not sold by market makers 01:49:35 Qubic is a ponzi per definition 01:51:18 I think the solution most likely to be adopted for Monero is PoW + no emission PoS finality layer. 01:51:28 With PoW still providing emission. 01:51:55 Pow+pos for finanality , pos needs incentive 01:52:06 It doesn't in Nano. 01:52:27 Nano is useless 01:53:09 Qubic is more useless than Nano yet still is managing to cause us a massive headache. Let's consider what we can learn from "useless" coins. 01:54:23 Ponzi work wonferfully til they dosent 01:54:25 just rich CEOs 01:54:53 Future XMR controller 01:55:30 What if they vote to return to decoys and limite it to 4 decoys? For compliance 01:55:40 if we had a CEO things would have been easier 😔 01:56:23 The actual hardest part of mitigating 51% will be coming to consensus on a solution, I see. 01:56:23 also a lot of venture funding and gov funding like zcash 01:57:09 If only xmr was at its just price of at least 4k per coins 01:57:24 We would not have that discution 02:16:18 <3​21bob321:monero.social> Rock,scissors,paper 02:20:36 It will never reach there with current randomx 02:22:24 Sure, centralizing mining with make it better 02:22:33 somehow 02:23:18 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/vofnWwkJUHxIBvKhJdPsUlsR 02:23:19 Is mexc allowing back monero? 02:23:31 Just getting reducing effect of botnets will do much better. Bump up ram requirements it’s not a specialised hardware 02:23:58 Bump up ram is to prevent specialized hardware to heat it all 02:23:59 yep 02:24:37 Yah or just continue being rags with botnets 02:24:38 I mine right now 02:24:39 I would mine qubit or some other shit if Monero required ASIC 02:25:03 You can’t buy 16gb ram ? 02:25:26 OH, then I missread you 02:25:27 So you mean, bumping the mining so it require more ram? 02:25:35 Yes 02:26:19 That could work. 02:26:19 Same process but requiring a lot more. 02:26:45 Don’t want to work ? Want freebies like botnets? Stay poor with price 02:27:43 How botnets affect the price, they provide hashrate. 02:27:45 Sure, bumping the botnet out could bring more honest actors but we might also endup with less hashrate 02:28:05 The reward coupled with electricity cost is what bring hashrate 02:28:27 0.6 xmr at 250$ is different to 0.6 xmr at 4k 02:28:46 at the end, just an increase in price would put the botnet into the insignifiant bracket 02:28:56 Botnet owners don’t support price, it costs them almost nothing to mine xmr ; they do spend dump at any cost and it affects price 02:28:57 If someone has paid for their rig they won’t sell at any price 02:29:19 because the botnet change according to how much shit they can infect / propagate 02:29:34 even if every miner dumps, 100k a day in sell pressure shouldn't be that impactful 02:29:44 they don't really care about the price, for them the most they infect the better 02:29:48 Costs almost nothing to mine, zero cost 02:30:17 it cost nothing to botnet but do you think that if price was 4k, the botnet would infect like 20x more machines 02:30:44 because if you take the account of electricity cost / reward you would see that price alone would bring a crapton of hashrate 02:30:46 They have been doing it for years, someone buys a few million in xmr, just to come back in a week to see someone mindlessly selling at any price 02:30:48 xmr support by lots of botnet/low performance devices, change to something with 16gb RAM, maybe kill xmr network healthy 02:31:16 It’s not healthy, it’s rotten 02:32:57 it would nuke the botnet and at minimum make xmr more vulnerable until replacement hashrate is brought online. 02:32:59 Sure, botnet hashrate would be replaced by more honest hashrate if the ram requirement was higher (again, reward & electricity cost is pretty much the only thing that matter) 02:33:07 botnet gone == extra reward buffer 02:34:12 With current state of xmr, legit miners are buffer 02:34:15 have to be careful with that migration, it's just what i'm saying. 02:34:17 bumping the requirement will probably shut the botnet instantly but it will take more than instantly to brind replacement hashrate 02:34:22 have to be careful with that migration, it's just what i'm saying. 02:34:23 bumping the requirement will probably shut the botnet instantly but it will take more than instantly to bring replacement hashrate 02:34:33 With current randomx, you need pos for actual security 02:37:26 actually, nobody knows how many hashrates support by botnet, 30%? 70%?, if just 30%, ok for replace to a bigger algo, but if 70%... 02:38:01 more serious to next step 02:38:46 Can they slowly increase the ram requirement, that would be ideal. That would scrap out the botnet.. slowly while healty hashrate replace it 02:39:03 botnets are good actually? 02:39:29 i think botnet is bad 02:39:36 hashes are hashes 02:39:53 We don't know what there up to too much 02:39:53 but they do provide hashrate. 02:39:55 if they are proving 70% and we nuke them in one day then it will be way easiler to attack monero till the replacement hashrate is brought online 02:40:45 And yeah, I don't think we can even know how much hashrate there prividing, so a gentle scrapping would be ideal... imo... 02:41:12 For the operators, not price or confidence of ppl investing in mining or coin 02:41:47 Explain again how kicking honest miners off the network helps against a 51% attack again 02:41:53 Explain again how kicking honest miners off the network helps against a 51% attack 02:42:19 Botnets are not honest 02:42:37 If you produce valid blocks are aren't employing selfish mining techniques, that's an honest miner 02:42:43 Just needs a bigger botnet to mine for cubic 02:43:04 Free zero cost mine anything 02:43:19 Yeah, it would also kick people wou have less ram. 02:43:21 16GB "should be ok" but 12GB is better. 02:43:23 a LOT of honest miners use that traditionnal "two 8GB dual rank stick" so they have 16GB today 02:43:25 And Ryzen run a lot shittier if you stuff the four slots so it would force them to replace 16GB for 32GB. It will incure a cost per 20Kh/s 02:43:27 Mine whatever pays more 02:43:35 is 20KH/s is worth 150$? 02:43:49 considering it make less than 10 a month, that is the question 02:43:59 you just described most crypto miners 02:44:21 Most botnet are "probably" on shit hardware and office shit that have 8GB or less. Again, probably 02:44:30 Good luck 02:44:46 Just rising the bar to 6GB should scrap a ton of them 02:45:52 I would say if they can make code that force the algo to require 1GB more, every months, until we are at 12GB, could be the way. 02:46:22 The only honest people that will get anoyed by that, are the one that mine on the computer they use at the same time 02:46:49 12GB out of 64GB is nothing, but 12GB out of 32GB might be a lot depending of the users 02:47:10 They are not going to even increase it by 1mb, they will give rpi excuse to keep mining themselves on botnets 02:47:39 do people even mine with that garbage grade hardware? 02:48:06 Ask lyza and crew defending their botnet algo 02:49:04 lol 02:49:05 for the price of an orange pi, you can get an used thinkcentre with 8 or 16GB ram, that have like 6x the oomph of a orange pi (plus it come with a metal case, 3 display output, 6-7 usb, 1-2 nvme and sata). 02:49:07 rpi/opi are such an overpriced scam 02:49:20 except if your plan is to make a computer for you car or to send it to space or something 02:50:16 Botnet loving crew is responsible for current state of xmr and will be dead in price and security in couple of years 02:51:35 Anyways I am out, this is MRL; I can’t do daily botnet rants 02:52:05 lol btw my laptop only 8G RAM XD 02:52:21 with core 2 duo CPU 02:53:27 if change to bigger algo, i cant mine xmr on this laptop for fun! (just kidding 02:55:38 Bymping to 12GB would remove only 4kh/s from my stash 02:55:47 Yes you are mining so much, thanks without your laptop mining for masters; xmr wouldn’t be where it is 03:21:24 i love that I can write into the bots "cryptographic whatsits" and it responds with "oh you mean commitments" 03:22:05 PoS + PoW Hybrid Would Work for Monero 03:22:05 In a hybrid design, both miners and stakers must agree on a block. 03:22:07 Example: 03:22:09 • PoW miner creates a block → 03:22:11 • PoS validators sign/finalize it → 03:22:13 • Block enters the chain only if it passes both checks. 03:22:15 This means an attacker would need: 03:22:17 1. >50% of the hash rate and 03:22:19 2. >50% of the staked XMR 03:22:21 …which is exponentially harder than just dominating PoW. 03:28:35 (If the goal is to completely control the chain, then yes. 03:28:35 If the goal is only to disrupt or stall the network, 50% in either would be enough to prevent consensus 03:28:37 Back to hiatus) 03:29:26 You need both for 51% attack 03:33:30 You may halt it for sometime but reorgs are not possible 03:34:16 You may halt it for sometime but deep reorgs are not possible 03:38:14 That sounds like a good idea 06:19:52 How do you guys feel about a hybrid like system? 08:46:32 i like it 08:56:25 It all depends how validators are chosen, how many there are and what their power is. Introducing an additional layer should be thought out as to not weaken the resistance of Monero to censorship/coercion. As of now I see it as abandoning decentralization, but happy to change my mind as details unfold 09:01:11 i like the 1 week epoch idea, not sure about PoS-ing every block for instant finality. 09:24:47 In that proposed hybrid scheme if majority validators offline - the whole chain is blocked 09:24:47 with the proposed finality layer, PoW continues - finalization is just halted 09:24:52 This is an important point. It's still easy for large actors with nuclear data centers to do a "denial of service" 51% attack on the PoW consensus protocol. 09:24:53 But, I like the idea of doing a hybrid PoW/PoS upgrade at first, because ). it seems like the most palatable solution. 09:24:55 If we ever do experience a denial of service 51% attack, we can discuss migrating to pure PoS (after its effectiveness has been tested in the real world). 09:25:18 This is an important point. It's still easy for large actors with nuclear data centers to do a "denial of service" 51% attack on the PoW consensus protocol. 09:25:19 But, I like the idea of doing a hybrid PoW/PoS upgrade at first, because it seems like the most palatable solution. 09:25:21 If we ever do experience a denial of service 51% attack, we can discuss migrating to pure PoS (after its effectiveness has been tested in the real world). 09:31:29 im gonna stop the delusion right there. nuclear is state controlled, so you are inherently talking of a state actor in which case it will be decently more economic to buy liquidity and stake, making PoS way weaker 09:33:01 In PoW, the cost to attack and the cost to defend are 1:1. And state actors will always have more resources. 09:33:46 In PoS, it asymmetrically favors defense. 09:33:47 You have to pump the bags of the hodlrs in order to attack. 09:34:36 And if they do buy 51% of the network, then congratulations to the early hodlrs, you now have a fat bag of BTC 09:51:53 I think POS or the proposed hybrid solution are the only realistic path forward. Yes they have their risks, but I think at this point the benefits outweigh the risks. 09:54:29 Mav on twitter is for some reason pushing for GPU mining 09:54:38 lmfao 09:54:41 which does not make any sense at all imo 09:54:58 I just saw him calling about exiting monero if it goes PoS because of centralization 09:55:09 come on 09:55:29 What an idiot! Don’t let the door hit him on the way out I guess 09:57:28 anyway if I can agree with mav for once is that there are a lot of seemingly silent accounts suddenly pushing for PoS 10:00:14 full PoS is definitely not the way 10:00:24 but the finality layer is a decent compromise imo 10:02:07 Maybe Mav just bought a GPU and wants to make some money. 10:02:09 He doesn't like PoS because he's poor. 10:37:45 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> will stop botnets 10:37:53 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> nobody mines on gpus illegally 10:43:09 1. it is too similar to zano. 2. it is an irrational compromise: if an adversary is willing to burn hundreds of millions on the stake, is he suddenly going to stop at spending a few million on cpus as welll? for this minuscule amount of pseudo security very fast finality and practically zero inflation is left on the table. 10:44:22 spirobel trying not to shill his zero inflation pure PoS challenge: IMPOSSIBLE 10:44:47 the pow game has been plaid out. its either asics, gpus or cpus. the endgame for private digital cash is zero inflation pos with 1-10 second finality. (default path sub 2 second finality) 10:44:53 its more about protecting the PoW from attacks than be resiliant against a literally infinitely wealthy PoS attacker 10:45:22 PoW consensus is already being threatened by something as tiny as qubic 10:45:40 qubic could have never reached a disruptive PoS stake 10:49:04 The devil is in the details, but my intuition is to agree with spirobel that pure PoS is better. But, a hybrid approach seems more palatable and easier to get up and running quickly. 10:49:38 Eth migrated in 2 steps IIRC. Step 1 to hybrid PoW/poS and then step 2 to pure PoS 10:50:07 it is kind of a once in a long time opportunity to get the switch done, if not now then how hard will it be in the future 10:50:29 we still have feelings for PoW but the vast majority of the world does not have these feelings. if you have the choice to use something that feels basically instant and has no inflation you will pick it over something that takes minutes to half an hour and has inflation. Monero can decide to be the former or the latter. 10:51:48 PoS doesnt have inflation? 10:51:56 It can have 10:51:59 transaction fees 10:52:03 could be enough 10:52:35 especially if it doesnt cost a ton of electricity to run an node right 10:52:50 since running a staker doesnt have a condiserable direct cost aside form the stake 10:53:45 I guess 10-20% of block reward 10:54:09 design choice. Iinear increase (!=interest) 10:54:11 if you have a block reward you still have inflation 10:54:22 Pow remains 10:54:24 fixed inflation is a good thing 10:54:36 It's not even really inflation... If 100% of people staked, then their relative purchasing powers would stay the same. 10:54:37 IOW, the supply might increase by 1%, but you also earned 1% on your stake. 10:55:20 IF xmr adoption raises, deflation means death of real producers. btw 10:56:13 want more HR to protect the network? pump the price 10:56:16 buy now 10:56:28 lol 10:57:08 right now we are discussing using bitcoin from the gf to pay for hashpower. that is like a system where the people interested in network security are willing to pay to stake. PoW is a very inefficent PoS system with negative inflation. its like the eu doing negative intrest rates taking money out of the biggest whale bank accounts. 10:58:12 In PoS, if you want to support the network, you pump the price! 10:58:29 always nice to remind that while discussing PoS is all fun and games but in the current state of things it can only be implemented in the long-term making it non-viable for preventing Qubic threat of today. Moreover, im afraid some here are getting to hype up about their stake idea while ArticMine i think explained in details the inherent vulnerabilities of it and multiple PoW har dening improvements can be think of first. 10:58:58 If and when it’s implemented, rn we are at mercy of random cpu masters 11:00:01 i know what I say sounds like I am committing blasphemy. its the truth though and nobody has given a convincing argument against it. people just argue based on what they think the crowd can accept. there is not a single argument based on facts. 11:00:52 i honestly kind of agree with spirobel 11:00:53 The question of how fast we can migrate to PoS is important. 11:01:14 But there is a lot of existing PoS privacy coins that we can look at their code bases. 11:01:16 PoS has a bad rep because of the way other projects use it 11:01:25 You can’t change social contracts that easily, you can adjust but not change it randomly 11:01:27 I think the question of whether or not to migrate to PoS is more important 11:01:29 and grumpy ex-eth miners 11:01:43 i was making 10€ a day mining ETH, of course its a bit sad that its gone now 11:02:11 i can only imagine how the people with 12 3080s must feel :P 11:03:22 Don’t worry there are only cpu owners who are actually profitable, a rare few; but yes their masters will bleed 11:03:46 It's not a random arbitrary change. It's in response to the price falling by like 20% because everyone realizes that pure PoW is weak. 11:04:14 Pure pow algo is weak 11:04:21 "everyone" 11:04:29 statement dreamed up by the utterly deranged 11:05:32 you guys love to talk about facts while extrapolating events in your favor. thats curious 11:05:33 what are the dangers of PoS? that you can short it on CEX? 1. same applies to PoW (which would be much cheaper and more feasible) 2. the people arguing for PoW will be gone in the future. They are already dwindling. We have to look at the situation from the end state instead of getting stuck in what we think the current "other people" will think. this perception is outdated and th 11:05:35 ey will be gone in any case. 11:06:16 TL;DR: PoS is good because I said so and I've bunch of my young friends here who love PoS 11:06:21 If devs are genuine they will bring out randomxv2 which isn’t exploited by masters 11:07:07 People can have ulterior motives for supporting PoW. They might have a bothet of cheap CPUs for example. 11:07:17 PoS is good because it can become big enough to not be fucked with. PoW will always be at the mercy of datacenters 11:07:38 I think there are no ulterior motives with PoS other than wanting the price to pump and the network to be secure. 11:07:39 no. address point 1. that was the inherent danger that arcticmine pointed out. a short against pow xmr is much easier to pull off than one against pos xmr 11:07:41 Can be fixed, needs to change ram requirements simple 11:07:53 PoS is also good in a scenario where miners are hunted 11:08:03 its very hard to hide a mining farm 11:08:10 finally a good argument 11:08:32 Ok mea culpa, however I would like numbers backing this up 11:08:50 There are no cpu farms, there are data centres or botnets 11:08:55 because pow involve a lot of logistics, that pos do not require 11:08:59 it's not just about money 11:09:20 also consider the memetics of: there will only ever be 18 million xmr. think about the feeling of saying it to a bitcoiner. that joy alone is worth it. 11:09:27 yeah, if you really wanted to go after miners you can track them down with a bit of effort and palantir software 11:09:53 It’s not easy to acquire a large stake, but am against only pos 11:09:57 i dont agree with the 0% inflation spirobel is suggesting lol 11:10:27 yeah zero inflation is bad 11:10:37 fixed inflation is good 11:10:38 we should still have a slight inflation to replace lost coins 11:10:58 Tail emission is just that 11:11:16 yeah 11:11:31 spirobel was arguing for 0% inflation, tx-fees only PoS 11:11:34 tail emission was to ensure the feasibility of pow into eternity. we saw how that played out 11:11:35 with zero inflation, the economy is deflationary which immediately pushes people to not consume/spend because the price of tomorrow will be higher than yesterday 11:11:55 aka it will be like bitcoin 11:12:02 Not just pow but replacing lost coins 11:12:16 oh fuck yes ofrnxmr good morning 11:12:46 that's it i can head out now 11:12:53 So there is a soft consensus for pos of some kind ? Maybe tweak pow too and help genuine home miners ? 11:13:27 there a no consensus whatsoever on pos, at least from the high weight devs/researcher people 11:13:35 on pure pos* 11:13:59 last meeting was "pow hardening worth investigating" and "pos/pow is interesting" 11:14:01 Some pos not pure pos 😅 11:14:05 my bad 11:14:13 all I can understand from this argument is, he thinks stake is sort of a credit to the network. Might be a fringe case at best, not to be generalized. 11:14:36 poor people will keep spending because of necessity and the end state is zero inflation. if there is a choice to convert to something that has zero inflation people will pick that any day. from a security point of view it is better because it disincentives liquid staking. there are no good reasons for inflation 11:15:14 spirobel do you even realize why the fiat system is trying very hard to keep inflation at 2% no more no less? 11:15:25 also its wrong, people loses coin, which make a zero inflation system deflationary 11:15:43 poor people will not keep spending 11:15:50 that has been proven over time in history 11:15:52 Deflation is not good for currency, as ppl can lose coins 11:16:33 so your argument is because mommy largarde said so? 11:17:18 also if you really believe that then we need a central bank that adjust according to what the current monero economy is like 11:17:29 incredible shortcut 11:17:36 spirobel the argument speedrunner 11:17:46 whats it with people disregarding basic economics today 11:18:23 1% inflation isn’t going to kill monero or price, but that same 1% can bring in more ppl into monero ecosystem 11:18:54 id even be down for changing the tail emission away from a fixed xmr amount to a fixed percentage 11:18:55 1% inflation is tiny. Some countries take more than 30% in taxes and still have higher inflation rates. 11:19:07 tari does it 11:19:27 right now we just end up in the same place btc will, just a thousand years later 11:19:39 this whole argument mixes in feelings about general economic policy by fiat legacy governments into a debate that should be strictly about security 11:19:41 oh 11:19:51 idea: add 10 lines of code to tell a node to checkpoint itself 10 blocks from its tip, and 10 more lines of code to tell it to ban peers that send alt chains that start before that cutoff 🧠 11:19:53 highly debatable feelings. 11:19:55 With tail emission the % keeps decreasing and that’s fine as number of lost coins will keep reducing with time as ppl get used to crypto currency 11:20:14 🪞 11:20:16 I think when thinking about inflation v. Deflation it's important to ask what's the goal? 11:20:20 Network security? 11:20:27 Preserving purchasing power? 11:20:27 eventually you will still reach deflation elongated 11:20:29 NGU? 11:20:46 Stimulating economy? 11:20:50 p2p digital cash economy 11:21:08 you cant divorce the economics from the rest of the design, they are pretty fundamental 11:21:20 people arguing for inflation have the burden of proof. 11:21:21 Better than if you have a fixed coin 11:21:23 currently we have negative inflation staking. 11:21:38 Why is deflation bad again? 11:21:45 For the purposes of being able to convince people to switch to the hard fork when we update the consensus, I propose we not change emission now. 11:21:47 same long-term result 11:22:21 yeah i agree, fucking with the economics would be too decisive 11:22:44 yeah i agree, fucking with the economics would be too divisive 11:22:45 also: we are not even asking about economic inflation or deflation. its not like we have the XMR FOMC meetings that assess the local catnip economy to adjust the monero fed funds rate 11:23:27 a slight inflation keeps stakers happy even if there arent many transactions 11:23:29 Still, we can't completely escape the economic debate, since PoS and PoW differ fundamentally in who gets distributed funds and if we do a hybrid model we need to decide which gets what percentage. 11:24:39 but the goal of SyntheticBird was to increase transactions and keep people spending. so wouldnt it be best to keep stakers unhappy when there are no transactions? so they go out and spread the word and make people happy to spend 11:24:47 if a farmer buys seed and earns less and less later on - he cant afford to buy seeds for the next season. starvation is the result of deflation, a death spiral. 11:25:23 % starts to compound quickly. I doubt monero will change the emission (its been the same forever) 11:25:39 (of producers in the real economy) 11:26:14 no, syntetic just didnt want to choke out any sort of economic activity via deflation 11:26:35 unhappy stakers that do little dances to keep everyone spending and making transactions is more likely to be successful than inflation. because the obvious answer to inflation is just to sell and move to an asset that does not have inflation. 11:26:42 wish we had more austrians in the chat 11:26:48 read hayek kids 11:27:37 I think Spirobel is making good points 11:27:39 either inflation or deflation - has to be just right! And there is no fixed formula 11:27:51 heavy consumers subsidize the way non-consumers live 11:27:53 *neither 11:28:11 if everyone spent money like me, the world economy would be in absolute shambles 11:28:14 If our goal is to attract people to a new monetary medium that can't be confiscated by governments, then deflation is attractive to Hodlrs 11:28:26 Dynamic blocks are a function of tail emission 11:28:49 Tx fees burn the emission under heavy usage 11:29:01 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> stop buying so many useless plushies >:c 11:29:21 PLUSHIES4LIFE 11:29:23 ryan my point is that i dont spend nearly enough to support an economy liek this one 11:29:40 right, we are in attraction phase - where economics is less important. 11:29:53 if everyone spent like me, we would get less technological innovations 11:31:33 in this phase memetics are important. 11:31:46 imo it would make a lot of sense just lock the current percentage inflation rate but the long-term gain would not be bigger than the shock of changing the economic design 11:31:58 we will be good for the next 500 years 11:32:19 I'm more worried about governments banning farming than I am about deflationary economics making seeds too expensive. 11:32:21 Spirobel is right that investors want low inflation assets. 11:32:23 future generations can decide if they need to lock it to a percentage 11:32:51 its the same cope as BTC maxis but the difference is that the BTC design falls apart at around 2040 11:33:01 which is really not that far from now 11:33:18 We had gold based currencies for 100s of years. Maybe you could argue gold has an inflation rate of like 1% 11:33:47 zero inflation is the inevitable end state. 11:35:08 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> no. don't remind me we're closer to 2050 than 2000. grr. 11:35:13 You need inflation for PoW, not for PoS 11:35:30 Because the electricity has to be paid for 11:36:02 the economics 11:36:03 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> single biggest lie in the monero network 11:36:16 economic design impacts much more than the consensus algorithm 11:36:57 Why is it a lie? I'm open minded. 11:37:07 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> this guy got infected with the srbminer. https://old.reddit.com/r/truenas/comments/1l0lqe3/discovered_a_hidden_crypto_miner_need_advice/ 11:37:14 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> electricity has to be paid for but no, you steal it 11:37:18 so spirobel wants to get rid of dynamic blocksize? 11:37:24 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> (srbminer was a stupid descision but...) 11:38:59 nioc: spirobel wants to move to a state of the art consensus algorithm. that is close to the inevitable end state of private p2p cash. 11:39:22 spirobel talking to about himself 11:39:35 (absolutely not a proof that asdfqwfe is his alt i swear) 11:41:01 i just did it to be cute 11:42:01 okay seriously what do you guys think the situation is in 5-10 years? 11:42:17 are we really going to wait half an hour for 10 blocks to arrive? 11:43:00 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> grab some coffee while the transaction finalizes 11:43:12 *tea 11:43:20 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> maybe pet your cat, water the plants... 11:43:31 plot twist, how are you going to pay for the coffee? 11:43:43 tea is cheaper 11:43:44 There is a layer 2 payment channel thingy for XMR in development. 11:44:03 in development? link? 11:44:13 Grease 11:44:26 remember lightning. press f to show respect 11:44:38 I hesitate to change emission just for the sake of changing emission, especially when the difference between deflationary and inflationary is so divisive. Inflation rate is already low and will become effectively even smaller over time. How much, really, is the difference between keeping our tiny rate and removing it entirely, especially when making that change might threaten our 11:44:39 ability to upgrade the network at all? 11:45:09 Grease: https://github.com/grease-xmr/grease 11:45:26 Not his alt. Great minds think alike :) 11:45:40 Her* 11:45:52 thx 11:46:17 practically we have negative inflation staking. like eu thieving from large bank account with negative interest rate. we do this because we need to do an electricity offering to the cpu gods. 11:46:22 There are going to be other hardforks in the future anyway, more chances to make changes to emission. We don't really need to settle this now. 11:47:08 It's not the same as negative inflation. The current model still has the effect of marginally reducing the value of the Monero in people's wallets. 11:47:16 There will be hfs in the future, but changing stuff like emission is fed reserve lvl rugging 11:47:49 I'm not in favor of changing inflation at this point, I'm just saying, now isn't the best time to fight for it. 11:47:58 "we decided to reduce inflation. Insert NGU upgrade" "weve decided we made enough $. Insert NGD upgrade" 11:47:59 I'm just throwing out random ideas out of my head dont mind my conspiracy theories 11:48:01 its his/him dont misgender me or i will report you to hr ofrnxmr 11:48:15 since when? 11:48:28 who is monero HR? 11:48:35 ofrn 11:48:48 I suggested a chance to emission some days ago and came to realize that it's sort of against Monero's principles to change emission without a really good reason. 11:48:50 circular dependency detected 11:49:02 change to emission* 11:49:32 more like a really really really good reason :) 11:49:48 like existential 11:50:03 yes you are right Torir practically we are a jungle tribe that does a very expensive ritual for no good purpose. lets hope we can reach modernity before we go extinct 11:50:04 And no, saying "inflation is bad" and "deflation is good" is not going to be convincing to this community. You'll probably want research papers to back it up. 11:50:34 If you want to remove inflation from Monero, make a rational argument for it and publish it as a paper. We are more likely to listen to that. 11:50:36 This does raise the question of how Monero is governed. 11:50:37 It's not a democracy or a corporation. 11:50:39 <1​7lifers:matrix.org> emission-free 👍️ 11:51:03 Being present for particl (pos. On chain voting) discussion to change (lower) their emission from 7% to 1%, shows that whales who own majority of the stake want to reduce the inflation after earning 7% for years 11:51:08 need emission for dynamic blocksize 11:52:06 it becomes like nano, where the only way to increase your holdings is to buy off of a bag holder 11:52:22 The problem is that changing emission is a violation of a vital social contract: the supply of Monero is supposed to be predictable and not controlled by anyone. The social contract is what makes Monero money and not an expensive waste of electricity. 11:52:46 tail emission is to pay for pow miners. if those are gone we can get rid of it. inflation is downstream from that. its a purely technical discussion 11:53:05 tail emission is for dynamic blocks. 11:53:38 Tail emission does still serve a purpose in dynamic blocks. It creates a cost for miners to grow the block size. 11:53:57 That won't go away with PoS, at least not with the immediate changes we are likely to make. 11:54:35 We are not getting rid of pow 😅 atleast rn if hybrid fails then it’s pos only 11:54:45 i hear people say a lot of times the benefit over btc is tail emission so we can pay for pow into eternity. dynamic block size is not really a topic because the economics of proof of stake are so much different and non of this has any relevance in the discourse around modern consensus algorithms 11:55:04 I maintain that this the easiest and most straigh forwars solution to finality 11:55:05 > idea: add 10 lines of code to tell a node to checkpoint itself 10 blocks from its tip, and 10 more lines of code to tell it to ban peers that send alt chains that start before that cutoff 🧠 11:55:37 Can you elaborate on this? 11:55:42 Doesnt rewuire a hard fork, and ensures that unlocked coins are immutable 11:56:01 There are good economic arguments against Proof of Stake. I originally didn't like Monero because I was like, "ew, proof of work coin", but I saw there were good reasons to use proof of work at the time and many of those are still valid. 11:56:15 The emission is penalizes when tx fees are high enoigh to grow blocks 11:56:23 Please push a pr so it can be tested while cubic is around 11:57:08 It might work. It might create a hard-to-resolve chain split. 11:57:59 Especially since such a chain split could likely not be resolved without invalidating decoys and requiring resending transactions. 12:00:17 11 block reorgs invalidate decoys 12:00:54 Yes, miners have the option to include more transactions in a block by sacrificing some of the emission and having that offset by transaction fees. It is designed so miners only do it when the network needs higher throughput and don't do it just to collect every fee possible. 12:00:56 our 10 block lock is arbitrary.. and unprotected 12:01:32 If we could ensure that every node agreed on the *same* checkpoint block... oh wait, that's the point of a finality layer. 12:02:04 Chain splits would only happen on nodes that allow invalidating txs. Mining pools are incentivized to not allow deep reorgs 12:02:49 Why do we need to use the "same" block? Everu node's should have tip-10+ blocks as "the same" 12:04:43 i don't see why we need an "authority" beyond our own node, to finalize 10 confs 12:04:43 I'd love to see a paper on it or even just an attack outline, but without a finality layer it might be possible to present an 11 block re-org to a node right before it gets to see the 10th block that would cause it to checkpoint and cause it to checkpoint a different fork from the rest of the network and be permanently stalled. 12:05:23 because once your off the checkpoint chain thats it 12:05:26 your node is gone 12:05:27 If an attacker can publish an 11 block reorg at once, they could absolutely choose to publish it, carefully timed, to some nodes and not others. 12:05:50 you cant present an 11 blocks w/o being banned 12:07:28 You can have 10 blocks while the main chain is at block 9, then when you see block 10 on the main chain you would send out your chain 12:07:43 To hopefully split nodes between the 2 12:12:15 You wouldn't even have to hide your whole chain. Publish 8 blocks of your chain while the network is at 9. As an attacker, you are likely highly connected to the network. The moment you see the honest miners block 10, you publish your block 9 and 10 (which are empty so they transfer quick) to 50% of the nodes you are connected to, and publish the honest block 10 to the other 50%. 12:12:17 The nodes who get your block 10 lock on your block 1, the other nodes lock the honest block 1. 12:12:37 You just split the network, congrats, because you controlled the order that nodes could see blocks. 12:14:13 Somethings not adding up 12:14:23 The consensus model has to consider that an attacker might have a lot of control over which order blocks are presented to nodes. If all nodes could always get all blocks in the same order, we wouldn't need a consensus mechanism. 12:19:55 How is the proposal to require miner to sign blocks received? 12:20:08 How is the proposal to require miners to sign blocks received? 12:20:56 venture: , the "enforce solo mining" thing? 12:22:20 yes, that one 12:22:52 i don't think it has been discussed in much detail. everyone's clamoring to get proof of steak into the protocol :( 12:23:21 it doesn't enforce solo though, p2pool mining would still be fine. IMO 12:24:32 Couldn't an attacker with 51% just generate a bunch of Sybil signatures? 12:30:08 The point is to remove large pools by making it possible for miners to steal the block reward from the pool, by requiring the PoW incorporate the private key for the pool reward in some way. It would affect 51% by making it hard for a pool to acquire that percent. It wouldn't change the attack if performed by a single entity. 12:30:49 It would kill the Qubic attack, since Qubic is essentially just operating a large pool. 12:32:31 Hmm, it sounds like a promising short/medium term solution. 12:32:49 Wouldn't really do much against nation state attackers. 12:34:59 There is some complication, like for instance pools could force miners to stake coins before mining so the pool could take the stake if the miners cheat. 12:35:39 So you need a version where it cannot be determined who took the coins, and that requires a lot of work to develop. Might be too slow for the present crisis. 12:37:49 I read up about this on the github issue. seems no silver-bullet 12:37:51 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/136#issuecomment-3185600624 12:39:22 One suggestion would be to add an instruction to RandomX that signs arbitrary data with the miner's key (with some limit so it doesn't trigger too often and slow down the mining). That would be very difficult to offload to a server. 12:40:50 actually, read for yourself.. the comment i just tagged was invalidated since the signature would be in the hash. 12:42:40 ^ sorry, i'm just reading up on this. should think first before typing :) 12:43:38 You are learning to think critically. Our community always wants more of that. 12:53:05 yeah, it's interesting how this could play out. At least I would assume a huge hashrate drop, but that's doesn't mean lower "network security" necessarily. 12:53:07 equating high network security with high hashrate completely misses 51% attack vectors. Seems like fighting fire with fire to some extend. You could have network hashrate of Zetahashes and still be insecure w.r.t consolidation. consolidation might even be more likely, with higher hashrates. 12:54:09 *enforcing solo mining would result in a hashrate drop 12:54:22 \*enforcing solo mining would result in a hashrate drop I guess 13:09:23 The primary point of PoW would be: 13:09:25 1) Decentralized pseudo-leader election (reducing conflicts during consensus without using a leader consensus protocol) 13:09:27 2) Trade-offs if we want to assume synchrony to some degree 14:21:09 In my view the community is panicking. This is simply not the way to make such profound consensus and even more important critical changes to the Monero economic model, such as emission rates to fund this vaguely defined POS proposal. 14:22:08 How above some hard numbers on the proposed changes to the emission rate? 14:22:27 As a start 14:23:31 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/plljvpssAvPFstmpdMAhSvjH 14:23:33 Yeah, let's not panic 14:24:19 The community SHOULD be panicking. That is the correct thing to do when your marketcap drops 20% and it becomes common knowledge how easy it is to 51% your coin. 14:25:15 so easy they failed to do it 14:25:38 not to down play that this is a potential issue but the house isn't burning down 14:26:32 but may in the future when a richer CEO attack Monero 14:26:38 if only the panicked hodlers sold their coins instead of suggesting quarter baked solutions to misunderstood issues 14:27:19 We aren't about to rush into a stupid solution. People are proposing things left and right but the core team is doing the usual thing and writing proposals and analyzing various suggestions. 14:27:40 Let's also remember that this is happening at the same time that governments are making a coordinated attack on privacy in general 14:28:20 I think you can probably ask all those politicians about Monero and very few would have heard of it 14:28:36 Qubic is failing with their so-called 51% attack. 14:28:37 They are being successful with a SOCIAL attack. 14:28:52 Their hope was that with all the free press their shitcoin would 10x then at that point they really could’ve 51% attacked Monero, do we really want to be at the mercy of regards? 14:29:08 Politicians are currently targeting Signal and the like for the most part. Monero is on the radar, but only as a bullet point in the larger realm of cryptocurrency. 14:29:11 Hanlon's razor usually applies 14:29:19 Exchanges have stopped withdrawals/deposits due to perceived reorg/51%attack that has caused more issues 14:30:13 and force Monero to switch to PoS 14:30:26 use Retoswap 14:30:32 services increased their required confs as well 14:30:45 his plan is _clearly working_ 14:31:04 Not easy for normies 14:31:07 That is actually reasonable and responsible 14:31:55 is there any way you think it could be further improved? 14:32:30 There are actual serious conflicts of interest issue here. 14:32:48 This is reminding me of the old block size wars with Bitcoin and Roger Ver's book about Hijacking BTC 14:32:58 Retoswap ? Normies don’t use desktop much, maybe a mobile app will help in adoption. 14:33:17 there's already an app in development 14:34:44 to an extent. Its harder to reorg 10 compared to 1 or 5 (and evict tx back to mempool w/ empty blocks), but still neither is going to remove the tx from the mempool. Issue is if attacker maintains enough empty blocks to prevent txs from gaining finality, for 72hrs 14:34:57 Vet's argument in Bitcoin was a conflict of interest involving developers 14:35:13 Ver's 14:39:10 mainly because there is a mining industry in the Bitcoin space with a lot at stake 14:42:12 https://x.com/DesheShai/status/1956001181546709005 14:46:16 Seems pretty reasonable 14:47:31 https://x.com/desheshai/status/1956003870498337144 ? 14:49:12 Well that part less so, but it still isn't unreasonable to say that 14:49:57 Many ASIC-mined coins have been actually double-spend attacked with >51% hashpower. 14:50:21 ASICS aren't a magical defense 14:51:35 I feel a hybrid approach with enough research is the way ahead. 14:51:45 I agree but any CPU friendly PoW has to deal with how easy it is to rent CPUs 14:51:50 Eth Classic, Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, Bitcoin Gold, to namea few. Source (sorry for long URL): 14:51:54 https://moneroresearch.info/index.php?action=attachments_ATTACHMENTS_CORE&method=downloadAttachment&id=269&resourceId=101&filename=6fdc223dcfff0d18fe706fb1cd1edac20644e31c 14:52:00 Fwiw I still think asic resistance is a good thing 14:52:38 Was Firo's PoW ASIC-mineable when they were 51% double-spend attacked? 14:53:58 https://forum.firo.org/t/firo-51-attack-post-mortem-and-vote-on-attackers-funds/1084 14:56:34 isthmus's analysis: https://mitchellpkt.medium.com/new-forensic-analysis-of-metadata-and-activity-from-the-january-2021-firo-50-1-attack-ad8bae6efdc0 14:57:22 The algorithm claims to reduce the difference between asics and CPUs: https://github.com/firoorg/firo/wiki/What-is-MTP-%28Merkle-Tree-Proof%29-and-why-is-it-an-ideal-Proof-of-Work-algorithm%3F 15:01:04 Didn't Monero change to RandomX in response to a private ASIC being developed? 15:06:49 Sure. When the house is on fire we order an untested highly complex and very expensive fire engine that would be delivered weeks or months down the road. 15:09:57 We need to be focusing on putting out the fire NOW m. 15:10:43 Wow that’s pretty bad it seems 15:15:11 We need to look at node relay solutions that while not perfect can frustrate the attack and am be implemented without a hard fork. 15:17:08 although the relay solutions could be a fun time to hard fork with e.g. the randomx update that's been sitting around forever? put everyone on the new relay rules 15:17:44 During the Bitmain attack people were not drafting CCS proposals. The community was working collaboratively to address the immediate attack, while a long term solution in the form of Random X was found 15:19:39 In this attack, ppl are asking to apply bandaids and not actual solution 15:20:37 . and by the way Bitmain was a far greater opponent that managed around 90% of the hashrate on a sustainable basis. Qubic is around 25% on a sustainable basis 15:21:00 Just waiting for them to scale 15:21:57 We apply the bandaid first, while we find the long term solution 15:22:19 This is what happened in 2017 15:22:23 Ccs is for long term solutions 15:22:59 We just replaced asic miners with botnets to secure network 15:23:34 CCS can wait. Let us get private financial interests out of the equation. We do not have time for this now 15:24:14 Ccs can be done in parallel, no harm on working for long term solutions 15:24:44 can enforce p2pool decentralized protocol to all monero mining pools, and stop all other pools from contributing to hashrate? 15:25:19 no, FiroPoW is GPU iirc 15:25:29 It clouds the choice of a long term solution if we have people advocating for their own financial interests 15:25:44 Hm, i see. If a ccs is funded, people are more likely to stop looking at alternatives, and donors / community is more likely to be swayed towards the already-funded research path 15:25:55 This is what is going on not 15:26:01 Now 15:26:15 Correct 15:28:31 Maybe it’s because there’s no financial incentive to mine monero in the first place. which makes it easier for some random dude with a random coin to do a 51% attack in the first place. 15:28:41 You mean pos ? 15:30:09 We need to discuss all options in a rational and unbiased manner. Then we can make an informed decision. 15:31:27 When people are pushing their financial interests one never gets a rational discussion 15:31:39 How about, as a form of bandaid, get people to donate to p2pool in order to make p2pool stronger? 15:31:39 Like, "donate here and the money gets distributed to the current p2pool miners" (those addresses are anyway seen on the p2pool chain I think) 15:31:41 Then let everyone know that such donations are happening, creating incentive for more people to start mining through p2pool. 15:32:35 The world is run by financial interests my friend. 15:32:50 Who will judge which options are rational or unbiased ? 15:33:44 The issue is that, users are a minority. Whether qubic can be classified as a botnet, is up for debate. But other botnets are/were the only reason qubic couldnt get their 51% 15:34:04 Users -> individual miners 15:34:30 speaking of CCS proposals, just posted https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/604 15:34:40 Can’t depend on botnets someday a larger botnet can attack 15:34:42 Cant get rid of botnets and not also get rid of rig rentals or qubic 15:34:49 The judge must not have a financial stake (pardon pun) in the judgement 15:35:40 there is no need to stifle free discourse, Artic. If there is no panic we have time to hear all sorts of different opinions. 15:36:15 There are good proposals to get rid of botnets. Such as the block singing proposals 15:36:20 Then you might as well say that anybody who mines monero or owns monero has no say, because it’s in their best interest for monero to do well. This is nonsense 15:36:36 can get rid of all of those and solve the problem? Solo and p2pool only 15:37:09 Does this do anything to stop qubic or rig rentals? 15:37:19 No I. Mean someone who is selling. a particular option 15:37:44 is there a need for urgent action? even in the worst possible outcome they wont double spend. the best might be to ignore them until they get tired and move on to something else. they have already hinted at mining another coin 15:37:54 1. The global hashratw would be like 500mh 15:37:55 2. Pools already mine on top of p2pool 15:38:05 I ended up doing a very brief outline for CCS, though obviously I expect the completed work to be similar in content/thickness as my FCMP++ paper (albeit angled for wider understandability throughout the community). https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/604 15:38:31 There is a strong case for mitigations 15:38:39 It’s important, because theirs nothing stopping someone else from doing something similar. 15:40:01 .bbl 15:40:16 We don't need the perfect solution now. 15:40:57 so, what about GF renting some... ? 15:43:24 Nobody is saying there is a perfect solution, but I just think monero should move away from POW. But what do I know 15:43:46 can make p2pool protocol standard and enforced for all existing pools? Decentralizing miners while retaining hashrate 15:44:16 Obviously we are at a stage we can’t let them go away, that’s why hybrid so that we are not fully dependent on them. 15:46:05 what are the mitigations? the outcome of yesterdays meeting was that anything short team wouldnt make a material difference. correct me if i am wrong 15:46:27 what are the mitigations? the outcome of yesterdays meeting was that anything short term wouldnt make a material difference. correct me if i am wrong 15:46:36 Yesterday's meeting was a mess 15:47:32 it was alright. we made good progress. 15:48:47 There was little rational discussion of mitigation that could be implemented without massive controversy. Instead it focused on drastic and highly controversial protocol chagges 15:48:56 the question if it is an attack. it seems more like a marketing campaign at our expense. that had the positive side effect to bring some motion into the pow vs pos debate. in the long run this benefits us greatly 15:49:02 Changes 15:50:06 it is not as controversial as we think it is. in the bitcoiner pow maximalist bubble it might. but this bubble is getting smaller by the hour 15:50:31 It was a marketing stunt, but it was a marketing stunt that hurt the reputation of monero and it shows that we’re vulnerable to a 51% attacks in the future. 15:50:56 arguably monero switching from pow to pos will be a bigger problem for bitcoiners than for monero. 15:50:58 There is a lot we can do with the existing POW, before even considering POS. 15:52:16 pow is played out. asics are not in the cards and gpus are not in the cards. 15:52:41 Exactly! Most Bitcoin is held by a very small group of people or exchanges. That just isn’t the case for monero. The distribution of monero is much more spread out and most exchanges have already delisted monero anyway, so the fear from centralized exchanges overblown in my opinion. 15:53:48 You mean former Bitcoiners? I plead guilty 15:54:24 monero was always against maximalism and pro changes and pragmatism. switching away from pow will make the bitcoiner holdouts look goofy. especially because we will be able to put numbers on how much more expensive and attack would be against monero 15:54:29 Temporarily yes, let’s patch ; next move to hybrid for a long term solution 15:55:28 monero was always against maximalism and pro changes and pragmatism. switching away from pow will make the bitcoiner holdouts look goofy. especially because we will be able to put numbers on how much more expensive an attack would be against monero 15:55:31 does anybody have a quick-fix proposal? 15:55:53 There are several. 15:56:08 we discussed that yesterday there is nothing that can be done 15:56:36 I disagree 15:57:01 What’s your short term solution? 15:57:38 I would like to hear also 15:57:53 Sech1's signing proposal with 1% 15:58:24 ... and trevadors's proposal 15:58:36 Both combined 15:58:43 signing blocks didn't work for wownero + doesn't stop renting CPUs 15:59:27 I still believe sech1's proposal is likely marginal and easily avoided. 16:00:09 tevador's proposal definitely makes sense when there isn't a knife near the edge of a table. 16:00:33 Marginal sure, but anything that helps a little is better than nothing 16:00:40 My "proposal" was just a random idea, but I see it's already living its own life 16:00:54 I believe it is so marginal, it is not worth rushing a hard fork for. 16:01:25 Do you have a link to the proposal 16:01:35 I think it fails complexity/benefit tests, as despite being simply, I think it has almost no effect if any. 16:01:47 I am unsure if either together or alone either proposals would stop renting a ton of CPUs to cause a huge reorg 16:02:04 there is a chance that demanding a deposit will frustrate Q* users ... ? 16:02:12 can you qualify that? isn't the impact defined by the percentage given to the miner who finds the block? 16:02:19 I disagt 16:02:35 I disagt 16:02:44 I disagree 16:03:34 There is very limited downside. 16:04:04 the fact it needs a HF is quite a big downside IMO 16:04:35 for what? what is it actually going to do? 16:04:51 any new release should increase Q* maintenance costs. 16:05:16 one heroic chain did signing with all the block reward ... and it failed 16:06:55 time to startup the 6 month HF cycle again? /s 16:07:23 nvm, found your concerns 16:07:23 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/136#issuecomment-3187508575 16:08:08 1. there is no immediate danger to monero 2. the attack cost on proof of stake is vastly more expensive than what we have now. Is there a rough consensus that this is the case? 16:09:13 not jet :) 16:09:13 Requiring miner's sign blocks can be beat with deposits, beat with a statistical edge, or by sharing an encumbered key with the user. 16:09:29 It forces miners to run their nodes, and put the control over the block on the miners and not the poo l 16:09:31 The key in my mind is the %. 1% works 100% fails 16:09:50 Because of that, it has no actual benefit yet adds complexity to the protocol. 16:10:25 Tevador's proposal requires miners run nodes or incur a nontrivial bandwidth penalty every 2 hours. 16:10:32 No deposits dose not work. To conpkex 16:11:12 SGP had notes due to how it's a fixed bandwidth penalty though, not a bandwidth penalty variable to the hash rate, so pools could just only service miners with enough hash to justify the penalty. 16:11:20 a pool can just ask for 99% of the block reward with the miner keeping 1% as a reward for finding the block 16:11:47 or it can take the 1% away from their returns already assuming the got a lot of shares before finding the block 16:12:07 If the percent is small enough, I think it has no effect other than making the protocol more complex. 16:12:15 Yes. But the pool does not know beforehand which miner will sign 16:12:31 (such as 1%) 16:12:39 Except pool payouts are issued after the block is mined. 16:12:51 So the pool does not get to sign the block 16:13:02 So long as the miner's shares are worth less than 0.006 XMR, then yes, the pool can post-deduct the 1%. 16:13:31 Which can be achieved in most cases a minimum floor payout of 0.006 XMR? 16:13:37 You give a 1% bonus to the signing miner 16:13:55 ... minimum payout of 0.012 XMR with 0.006 XMR left with the pool? 16:14:16 And the pool can simply deduct that 'bonus' from the amount it otherwise would've paid the miner for their shares. 16:14:42 Minimum payment to the finder of 0.006 XMR 16:15:03 if we could figure out where we stand on these two questions we could have a more productive discussion 16:15:09 Regardsless of the finder miner hashrate 16:16:04 > Default payout limit is 1 XMR and can be adjusted from 0.11 XMR and up to 10 XMR 16:16:38 1) I say there is no immediate danger 16:16:39 2) Not even close 16:16:41 I don't think Nanopool, who has a 0.11 XMR minimum, will mind a lucky miner having spontaneous 0.006 XMR payouts it can simply deduct from the not-yet-paid-out shares. 16:17:04 The pool only loses money if a miner who hasn't reached a pending payout of 0.006 XMR gets lucky and mines a block. 16:17:21 (and then stops mining and leaves) 16:17:35 The pool loses a fraction of 1.5 USD in that case. 16:17:37 The pool does not loose money 16:18:09 The pool can recoup the bonus paid to the miner by counting it as a payout from the pool though ArticMine 16:18:11 I agree with kayabanerve , it's easily recouped by pool fees, payout floors and other things I guess 16:18:16 The bonus is built into the pool cost 16:18:26 That way, the pool maintains 100% of the block reward. 16:18:36 This was raised by boog900: 16:18:46 So you agree it doesn't stop pools? 16:18:54 Why do you support it then? 16:19:09 spirobel @spirobel:kernal.eu: We aren't agreeing on PoS overnight, even if you believe it obvious BTW. 16:19:23 That's why we're not primarily discussing why PoS should be decided on tonight. 16:19:23 The point is that the pool does not create the block 16:19:35 The miner does 16:19:45 The next step is an explanation to inform discussions IMO, hence my CCS. 16:19:47 It can create a block with an empty sig 16:19:56 ArticMine: but... Signing the block was never meant to do that. 16:19:58 For the miner to fill in 16:20:11 It would've just signed the pool-issued template *with each hash*. 16:20:16 Your CCS is biased to a particular solutions 16:20:36 Tevador's proposal was to have miners run their own nodes or face a bandwidth penalty. It still doesn't cause miners to self-build blocks. 16:21:01 ArticMine: My CCS, to explain and reason for a specific solution, is biased towards a specific solution? 16:21:04 It is part of the solution 16:21:15 I wonder which 🤔 16:21:29 Rucknium will look into the literature regarding number 2 if PoW or PoS is more expensive to attack. how expensive to we assume an attack on monero is currently? to have a rational discussion on how to harden the consensus this is really the core question. 16:22:12 (Yes, obviously my CCS to inform a discussion on a PoS finality layer and advocate for it is in favor of a PoS finality layer) 16:23:03 At least POS is actually mentioned 16:23:09 Clarifying: the next step *for PoS* is my CCS. I was replying to spirobel's repeated calls to discuss PoS. 16:23:25 The next step *in the PoS FL discussion* is my CCS IMO, or an equivalent alternative. 16:23:36 Why not just say so 16:23:38 I did not mean to say the next step *in this entire meta of discussions* is my CCS. 16:23:43 Apologies if that was misinterpreted. 16:25:07 Off Topic: My idea was from the beginning, that we do not control the resources on which our consensus mechanism is based. We do have a working community and a big p2p network (with some ugly faces). I don't have an answer, but maybe we can find a way to levarage our own resources. 16:25:36 kayabanerve: i dont assume that. to move forward we should put clear numbers on the table. I am just skeptical of these half half hybrid solutions because they side step the core question of pow vs pos 16:27:35 Thank you. I really felt that jargon was being used to obfuscate what was really going on. 16:27:37 Make POS prominent rather than the finality layer. Refer to Trusted Execution Environment rather than TEE 16:29:24 ArticMine: My work on a finality layer will primarily focus on PoS because a proper finality layer requires an agreed set of validators. Either we swear to pledge allegiance to the four? active members of the Monero core team, or we have a decentralized selection process. 16:29:43 While I'll cover various ways to, I've already said why I don't believe selecting block miners works. 16:30:30 But technically, it won't explicitly be staking XMR and would explore options from a modular standpoint. 16:31:16 If you come with your own idea to select validators, you'd be welcome to add it to the book, make your own recommendation there, and reuse the rest of the components for what to do once you've decided a validator set. 16:31:26 This was not made clear at all. I brought up the question of POS 16:32:04 ArticMine: your main contention with pos is that someone can open a short against their stake and then perform the attack, right ? 16:32:58 I have very serious concerns regarding POS going back over a decade 16:33:17 >an agreed set of validators -- thats key; Maximum Stake is not the only way to select them 16:33:25 To quote my CCS, 16:33:27 > The book would cover the basic premises of synchronous vs. asynchronous consensus, data availability, possible goals of any finality layer, potential methods of selecting validators, potential methods to decide on finality, features from there, and various trade-offs. Also included would be the role of Proof of Work in the remaining network, compared to its role currently. 16:34:28 that is the gist of it though? 16:34:48 What do you mean] 16:34:49 *? 16:36:01 ? 16:36:41 One thing that eludes me so far is how would the validators be incentivized? 16:36:52 That quote is the primary aspect to my CCS, and the above comment on having a modular focus is accurate. 16:37:13 This is also my question 16:37:16 hbs: Altruism, transaction fees, or block rewards. 16:37:25 *or emissions. 16:38:02 this is what I am missing, fees and block rewards still would go to PoW miners right? 16:38:31 So additional emissions on top of the current tail emission? 16:38:57 ArticMine: i mean what is the contention besides opening a short? the same thing could be done with pow. shorting a coin and renting cpus to attack is much cheaper. 16:39:17 hbs: I'd propose a portion of the existing emissions. 16:39:29 Fees are a complete non starter to compensate POW or POS 16:39:47 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/136#issuecomment-3172739650 16:41:04 We are left with emission to compensate the P Of S validators 16:41:42 >First and foremost, it is a cost. People decide if they benefit enough from it, in terms of securing a network that provides them a useful service, to justify their cost of participation. Looking at it from a profit-making perspective is just completely wrong. 16:41:44 And either increase emission/inflation or lower the PoW layer emissions 16:42:45 Yes 16:43:03 transaction fees are enough. the argument for emission was that we need pay miners for their costs. those costs dont exist for stakers. so they dont need to rewarded highly. 16:43:14 This is what is really been proposed 16:43:15 nominal inflation is pointless 16:44:25 Stalkers expect yield 16:44:42 Stakers 16:45:34 ... and typical yield rates are way higher than Monero 16:45:48 Tail emission 16:45:59 but that is not our problem. we just want to secure the network. nominal inflation is completely pointless. it just gives people the illusion of an APY and I would say we are better of without these kind of people 16:46:18 Validators DO have costs; 16:46:43 So an effectively uncompensated PIS? 16:46:55 POS 16:47:11 I'd actually propose burning transaction fees and keeping emissions. 16:47:20 Not as part of this mess, just in theory. 16:48:05 That is what effectively the current penalty does to a degree 16:48:33 Except it doesn't burn all TX fees. 16:48:45 Yes 16:50:14 ... but miners do need an additional incentive to include transactions 16:50:50 As uncompensated as PoW, today 16:50:51 Eh, that one I'm actually fine leaving to altruism. 16:50:59 (and the benefit to the Monero price) 16:51:08 Worse 16:51:24 Tevador's proposal also works to ensure miners do run nodes. All they can save is a mempool if they were to be so disruptive. 16:52:03 you mean, these peanuts? They are helping to keep a network alive, they see value in it, as a payment system. 16:52:04 It also stops miners from spamming yet recouping the fees. 16:53:44 I can see the argument for a partial fee burn but not be 100% of fees 16:54:13 the end state of p2p digital cash is zero inflation. I don't see why people would prefer a system with nominal inflation over one without. whales currently have the option to sell some of their xmr to buy hashrate and secure the network. effectively this means a negative inflation PoS. people have to pay to secure the network. people still do it because they believe in monero. a 16:54:15 high APY is counter productive for security. opportunistic stakers are like rented hashrate that is willing to switch to qubic when the price is right. 17:03:41 This whole POS idea is little more than a major distraction at a time of crisis 17:05:14 there is no crisis. and there is no good argument against PoS being more expensive to attack than PoW or at least they haven't been broad up. 17:08:13 The onus on making the economic case lies with those who want to drastically change the social covenant 17:08:28 POS is part of solution not a distraction, crisis came because we were complacent 17:08:33 Not with those opposed 17:10:04 There seems to be a disagreement between the POS proponents on whether there is even a crisis 17:10:52 Ppl are ok with hybrid, full pos is a no go 17:11:33 The devil is in the details 17:12:06 I see no evidence whatsoever that the two PoW tweaks combined would meaningfully mitigate the rentable hashrate risks. Which is why I'm not enthusiastic about pursuing them as an emergency response 17:12:09 Details need to be worked out, nobody is rushing for pos part right away 17:14:32 it's offtopic slightly (qubic), but regarding no crisis, i would watch moneroconsensus closely. if their current numbers are remotly true and not broadcasting any blocks, it means they are building a long side chain to be broadcasted eventually. 17:14:33 https://qpools.qubicdisciple.info/ 17:14:35 claiming 56% right now, with no blocks being broadcasted 17:14:58 No, they are mining blocks normally 17:15:09 So why is this even being discussed as a response to Qubic? 17:15:11 We're watching what chain they're mining on. It's the main chain 17:15:37 That page is broken, it's missing all recent blocks 17:15:58 ah, that's a relieve .. somewhat :) 17:17:01 its on us to objectively compare the different systems and make sure the consensus is secure. It is not hard to just take a look at PoW and PoS and put a number on how expensive an attack would be. I am not advocating for one of the other. I just want to see a rational discussion about it. 17:17:13 I think kayas work can help a lot on this 17:17:15 Fwiw, I don't think any reasonable comments here are saying "proof of stake has no downsides whatsoever", but the support for considering PoS in TFL form seems to come from realizing that it's likely the most realistic option with the potential for the least harm and most retained Monero PoW benefits. At least that's my logic for being interested in TFL 17:17:20 Are they getting ddosed? Or misreporting their hash rate? 17:17:51 Because you see hash rate being rented alongside access to a node? 17:18:07 i just hope it does not start with the premise that the outcome has to be a hybrid TFL. just approach it with an open mind and find the best solution 17:18:24 Isn't a lot of the HR available for rental from botnets? 17:19:26 It is a huge blow to decentralization if I understand it correctly 17:20:24 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/uBgkVXcBcdAYzlrENUuLHmlE 17:20:30 wtf 17:20:54 I'm not sure about what the source is currently, but there's not much stopping someone from renting a datacenter and running a node there as well 17:22:56 there are thousands of miners, there will not be thousands of validators, so going after them all is perfectly feasible 17:24:04 for hashrate which is not stolen sure 17:24:47 i think it will be important how the community will react to eventually >10 block re-orgs. TFL is too far down the road, but in the meantime, there will likely be no harm, other than reputation. (I don't see them performing a double-spend) 17:25:16 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/MwPDcsbxdRMlcHRHXesviiqQ 17:25:26 their stats reporting site is already down :D 17:29:04 they cannot do a double-spend publicly, it's illegal to attack a computer network 17:29:24 Why can't they split the block reward 90=10? 17:29:31 Why can't they split the block reward 90-10? 17:29:39 miners and validators 17:30:22 as that point validators are providing some of the security as a result of their "work", so it's somewhat compensated. But it's not the majority of the security, so it's not the majority of the block reward 17:30:28 tbh i feel bullish. the energy in the community feels stronger than ever. who cares about short term price / reputation. the potential from this is that we get rid of 10 block lock time and make the network more resistant while reducing costs 17:30:29 numbers can be tweaked, obviously 17:30:59 still unclear how validators would be selected and what their quorum would be 17:31:03 honestly every single small cap PoW coin should be laser focused on Monero right now. What happened to us WILL happen to them. 17:31:38 Firo has masternodes. 1000 collateral. I know masternodes are a dirty word in Monero circles, but collateral does incentivize the validators to act honestly since they have "significant" stake. 17:31:46 Some split of the reward is likely, but it'll come down to the details 17:31:55 and the elephant in the room: bitcorn. 17:32:28 will happen to Bitcoin too, but they're too high and mighty to pay too much attention to us, so we'll let them have their own panic attack when they get to that point 17:33:35 The people here have been harping for years on the fact that Bitcoin's fee market-only thing is unsustainable, and becomes so well before their block reward goes to 0. But this isn't a Bitcoin room. ;) 17:35:03 I like to think that most validators will be interested enough in validating with the possibility of profiting for correctly slashing someone malicious :) idk how to properly model that though 17:35:12 The truth is that there is a very limited amount of PoW coins that can be reasonably secure in this world. 17:35:38 And I think that number is much smaller (uncomfortably so) than most people think 17:36:24 but if there are too few validators they can be coerced 17:36:40 Correct. Or easily sybil'd 17:36:46 nothing against firo and zano, but i am skeptical of these type of solutions. thats why i hope kayas proposal approaches this with an open mind. we cant end up in this kind of category of obscure microcaps. we need something better 17:37:18 I don't disagree. At present every single solution is "unproven" 17:37:19 They'd be coerced to destroying their own value, the stake. It's a tough sell 17:37:29 just existing in the wild with a solution live as a microcap coin does not equal "proven" 17:37:30 Does anybody have a rough guesstimate for how long it would take to implement the PoS finality layer? 17:37:34 it just means you're too small for anyone to care to attack you 17:38:04 Also, what is the governance... Who makes the final decision? 17:38:05 what if a majority is coerced? they could then act maliciously 17:38:07 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/axMqyGLbCQEBHPgteNvMOxCH 17:38:25 But this is exactly the problem here. If the game theory completely breaks down when someone doesn't act in their own economic self-interest, then it's actually not robust. Because Qubic is NOT acting in their own economic self-interest here. They're losing money. But they're gaining headlines. 17:38:44 In addition, nation states will ALSO not care to act in their own economic self-interest if they attack a coin. They are willing to lose money to break something down. 17:38:48 Moneroconsensus.info down? 17:39:03 worked for me 17:39:13 indeed, and a small validators set makes it easier 17:39:23 its probably under a lot of load 17:39:26 Economic self interest is the only realistic bound we have, without trusting someone 17:39:32 This game theory breakdown is literally why we're having this conversation to begin with. And if we set up the next set of consensus rules on the same game theory, it may be harder for smaller groups like Qubic to take advantage of, but ultimately doesn't stop the big boys from doing so. 17:40:02 An unlimited resourced adversary can destroy anything 17:40:36 Right. I hear you. And I agree. I don't purport to have a solution. 17:40:43 I have my smart four on this too btw 17:41:05 true, but decentralization makes execution of order 66 way harder 17:41:12 I'd like to see anyone here with eth connections reach out to researchers there who did their PoS research 17:42:04 Eth had a centralization issue given the 32 Eth staking per validator 17:42:15 The counterargument against this is that you don't need to coerce even a single party to execute an attack with PoW 17:43:00 while this is true, if we add something to an existing system (like PoS), we want the sum to be harder to attack than if it wasn't added 17:43:24 so adding complexity to the attack surface for something that can be pretty easily attacked via coercion, well, might as well not add anything? 17:43:41 this whole discussion may require a throughout risk assessment, it seems we are focusing on a single risk and kind of forgetting what the Monero ethics were trying to protect us from 17:45:16 Anyone looked at decred's hybrid PoW/PoS model for ideas? 17:46:42 This may be inappropriate to say, but this is kinda fun. :P 17:47:04 Monero isn't really going anywhere, and we have a hard problem on our hands that's bringing in all kinds of smart people to work on. 17:47:55 smart people + me :) 17:48:22 Reminds me of 2019 17:49:26 some of the best Monero times 17:50:04 We just came back from Defcon btw (me and some of my CS team). TONS of Monero lovers there. 17:50:26 how many feds 17:50:43 they're all feds as far as I'm concerned 17:50:45 How was it at the mini-village? 17:51:23 Was really fun! We had a lot of traffic. 17:51:49 Did you bring any pro Monero pamphlets? :) 17:52:11 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337831342_A_Hybrid_POW-POS_Implementation_Against_51_Attack_in_Cryptocurrency_System 17:52:18 Just sharing 18:20:57 1:47 PM ​ ​ ​Monero isn't really going anywhere, and we have a hard problem on our hands that's bringing in all kinds of smart people to work on. <<>> come to monerkon next year 18:46:39 https://electriccoin.co/blog/the-trailing-finality-layer-a-stepping-stone-to-proof-of-stake-in-zcash/ 18:49:45 The Zcash Electric Coin Company is considering the Trailing Finality Layer as a stepping stone to migrate from POW to POS 18:52:27 I am not a fan of POS. What I am really categorically opposed to is trying to pull wool over people's eyes. 18:54:18 If the real agenda here is to migrate Monero to POS, it is best to be open about from the beginning. 18:58:33 there is also this https://seanbowe.com/blog/tachyaction-at-a-distance/ 19:00:35 i agree. it would be better if we could just talk frankly and spell out what the endgame is for p2p cash. It means almost instant finality, zero inflation and lower node requirments. (no need to keep all key images around to verify transactions, see Tachyaction) 19:01:12 will be so bullish when people see this 19:01:27 The proper approach to this discussion is for the POS proponents to make the case for POS as a stand alone protocol. The proponents keeping POW can also make their case 19:01:29 Please don't muddy the waters with hybrid solutions. 19:01:31 If the result is a hybrid solution, we could get the best of both worlds. 19:11:19 On another note these finality layer proposals should not preclude improvements and tweeks to the existing POW. 19:11:19 After all the POW side is hardened this improves a hybrid solution 19:11:36 I've not kept track of today's chat, but "Please don't muddy the waters with hybrid solutions" is not a fair ask, as a hybrid solution might have plus (as well as minuses) that are due to being a hybrid, and which would be missed by looking at PoS and PoW in isolation. 19:12:27 I'm personally going to be supportive of combining whatever elements result in the best output at the end 19:13:09 (though I am biased in saying this since I adopted a hybrid system in Townforge) 19:15:33 what mini village? what'd I miss? [@diego:cypherstack.com](https://matrix.to/#/@diego:cypherstack.com) 19:18:03 Looking at POS and POW in isolation is part of the process . We first need to get an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both POW and POS 19:18:05 I do agree that two weak systems can be combined to create a hybrid where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In fact Monero's current approach to privacy is a perfect example. 19:18:07 In order to maximize the benefits of a POW POS hybrid we need to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both POW and POS 19:19:02 I agree with this, if this is only a first step to divide and conquer the problem spae. 19:21:35 Please by all means, I want to see a (PoS xor PoW) and (PoS and PoW) constructive discussion. I'm tired of seeing the same empty shilling message all day 19:23:17 I agree 19:24:02 FWIW, my goal in TF was to require a would-be 51%er to not only have 51% of pow and/or pos, but also a sizeable portion (though less than 50%) of the other, on the assumption that people would typically not be in a position to acqiore both at once. 19:25:19 Admittedly a fairly naive goal - I did not go through all known issues to assess how the change mattered to them... 19:25:44 (and I don't stake the currency itself, which has pluses and minuses, but I digress) 19:27:04 We had a space at defcon. 19:27:05 I also must admit I am intrigued by the idea of PoS blocks without a block reward. After all, PoS incurs not much cost (at least compate to pow like electricity). 19:28:20 Which many of us knew nothing about 19:28:54 So the benefit of protecting one's own balance should be enough for someone to stake. In Townforge, the PoS reward is 5% of hte PoW reward, because I saw a small % is enough as an incentive, but I had not finished the thought process to reach 0%... 19:30:02 " So the benefit of protecting one's own balance should be enough for someone to stake." >>> well, sorta similar logic exists for monero. You should be mining to protect the network you are in. 19:30:13 0% however means one would not bother making a block absent txes. Which would probably not happen in monero. 19:30:21 Removing the block reward is not necessarily a good thing. The tail emission results in a stable circulating supply, which you could argue is preferable to deflation if we do actually view monero as a currency. https://petertodd.org/2022/surprisingly-tail-emission-is-not-inflationary 19:30:32 but that didn't really happen, enough, apparently 19:30:34 Yes, I am talking about monero here. 19:31:08 Great job on marketing it, first I hear. 😂 19:31:28 I meant no block reward for *PoS*. The block reward for PoW would stay untouched. 19:31:29 You weren't target audience ;) 19:31:43 PoS would just get tx fees. Or N% of the tx fees. 19:31:49 oneromooo: Ah, my bad, thank you for clarifying 19:31:56 m​oneromooo* 19:31:59 yeah. but assuming people are going to do something because they should because it protects their investment might be a tall order 19:32:04 For self custody this works very well . It is custodial wallets with both regulated and un regulated custodians that concern me the most 19:32:24 They won't. Pretty much guaranteed. 19:32:28 Qubic started reporting hashrate again: https://miningpoolstats.stream/monero 19:32:33 because apparently it is a tall order for the existing monero ecosystem 19:32:39 Not really. If it costs next to nothing, which PoS does, and gives people peace of mind... 19:32:42 Find a way for the network to detect self custody 19:33:09 But if an actual reward is needed, 0.01% is ~0. 19:33:13 I don't think they are orphaning blocks either 19:33:21 Wow 45% is nothing to sneeze at 19:33:23 ArticMine: Did you comment on the suggestion to use the General Fund to rent hashpower as a short-term countermeasure? https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/136#issuecomment-3186908147 19:33:35 hash rate ATH for them 19:33:40 there's no way to tell its real unless they create blocks 19:33:46 Wow 45% is nothing to sneeze at 19:33:54 45% of known hashrate, plus unknown 19:34:01 Wow 45% is nothing to sneeze at 19:34:14 No I have not 19:34:19 (not sure why I'm saying that except it's fashionable) 19:34:30 I'm a trend setter, it's true 19:34:34 gingeropolous: you can see a bit more in different ways. the hashrate is real, but also they were quite unlucky 19:34:37 wow its moneromooo a real monero celebrity 19:34:43 /nick diego:cypherstack.com 19:34:45 I think this is outside of the stated usage policy that binaryFate stated, but it could be effective now: https://reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/1iixgk9/monero_general_fund_transparency_report_february/ 19:35:01 lmao 19:35:50 oh this is like phase 2 of their marketing plan 19:35:51 It was unfortunate that the MRL meeting yesterday was messy. I will try to do better next time. Suggestions for meeting format & rules are welcome. 19:35:57 guys it's ok. Zooko says it's nothing to worry about: https://x.com/zooko/status/1955679269792927795 19:35:59 rent a bunch of hash rate when they go back on the public API 19:36:16 This was unprecedented. Not your fault. 19:36:29 whatever at least they are not orphaning blocks 19:37:15 they say only once 51% is reached 19:37:30 FWIW, the "spend > block reward" is a known PoW failure mode since PoW relies on econonic incentives. 19:38:03 what happened to supportxmr lost 300 mh 19:38:09 In my view you did the best under extremely difficult circumstances 19:38:27 It looks like qubic got some hashrate from supportxmr 19:38:41 (this applies to whether the PoW is ASIC based or not, ceteris paribus) 19:38:54 I think you did a very good job rucknium 19:39:43 yeah 19:39:48 totally 19:39:59 Agreed. This is a free channel, you cannot (and arguably should not) be expected to herd cats more than that. 19:40:07 Is there a way to view a wallet with only the view key? 19:40:12 No right? you need pub address? 19:42:34 The private view key is enough. But you won't be able to tell the target address, just the amount. 19:42:58 Rucknium: It isn't your fault. It's a very opinionated subject with many heads. We potentially should handle each head individually, and start cutting some down (such as sech1's proposal, which while well-received, seems wayyyy too easy to avoid via several methods IMO and likely can be dismissed. Sorry for the drive by sech1, just seemed like the clearest example). 19:44:15 One of my biggest concerns is that the POW improvements or tweeks were dismissed or attacked in order to promote POS hybrid solutions. 19:44:15 If the real objective is to create a hybrid solution, surely it makes sense to strengthen each component individually. 19:45:02 yah know, that hashrate... 3 GH/s.. comes out to 33 thousand of the dual epyc 7h12s that i have 19:45:44 the HR support lost is compared to 30 July not yesterday 19:45:51 Not even that. Need key images. 19:45:53 Yes I feel like there is a lot of hype over the hybrid solution and I'm interested to learn about it but dev/maintainer burden needs to be taken into consideration. I said earlier in this chat that PoW hardening could be implemented way faster than PoS/Hybrid 19:46:35 Let's not lose the current state of affair 19:46:39 guess it depends which data you look at re HR 19:48:13 sight on the current state of affair* 19:48:30 How does implementing Sech1's proposal prevent a TFL? 19:48:31 PoW hardening can probably be done quickly in a fork. Doesn;t need to be a either/or/ 19:48:44 i just can't believe it. but if you entertain the idea that its asics somehow, the attack doesn't make sense, cause they would be killin the network they just made a device for. 19:48:50 I didn't say it did ArticMine? 19:49:03 I said this discussions has many heads and we can focus the discussion by cutting some off. 19:49:15 sech1's proposal, IMO, is the most discussed yet easiest to close. 19:49:24 So why the vehement opposition? 19:49:36 It's not ASICs, it's rented hashrate and miners voluntarily joining for profits. 19:49:37 Because it 19:49:42 which one is sechs proposal? 19:49:43 s a bad proposal and I have an opinion on it? 19:50:20 *the proposal was an idea thrown out by sech1. It isn't a bad proposal because it was never such an extensive concept. it's just an ephemeral idea which should've died days ago. 19:50:31 Stop pinging me :D 19:50:39 Miners signing blocks to decrease pools. 19:50:42 Sorry sech2 19:51:06 Am I not allowed to have an opinion that certain changes to PoW are pointless and shouldn't be done solely because I'm also advocating a finality layer? 19:51:10 I didn't even push my proposal, because I know the limitations of it. But people can't seem to stop discussing it 19:51:15 er... wowsech ? 19:51:15 In it's original from I actually did not support it. I do however believe that it could be improved 19:51:28 Which is why I'm saying it should be sent to the chopping block lol 19:52:09 two interpretation of chopping up here? 19:53:11 I have thought a little bit more about the 0% PoS thing. 0% will actually centralize, because only M% of holders will decide to stake. Adding a subsiy will decide more people. Now, how close is M to 100 is a damn good question. 19:53:53 There should be a subsidy such that it's profitable and worth doing 19:54:41 Well, "worth" was "I don't lose anything, and I gain security". vs Pow being "I lose electricty and again security and block reward". 19:54:43 I'm unsure how any variant of 'miners sign blocks' could be successful as that concept seems fundamentally flaewed, but if ArticMine, you want to own and remix the proposal, I can't stop you and I won't try to call for its end until I understand it _and then_ disagree with. 19:55:01 But that doesn't stop me from disagreeing with 'miners sign blocks' and calling to end that 19:55:17 Good outlook, kayabanerve. 19:55:27 You lose 'the cost of a server' 19:55:49 moneromooo: I agree. From what I understand, this is a classic public goods problem. With 0 direct financial reward, small users won't stake because the marginal cost to them is higher than the marginal benefit. 19:56:07 Hnn. I kinda assumed most holders have a always online machine already... 19:56:24 i doubt it 19:56:40 well, an always online machine running monero..... probably not 19:56:43 I quit dial up in 19... something... 19:57:12 OK fair. 19:57:18 Eh, they're still giving up a portion of their bandwidth 19:57:20 'oh no, I can't run a monero node right now, I'd lose 10 fps. How can I stake if I can't always run a monero node?' 19:57:25 In Townforge it make a lot of sense that users would have the machine connected to the network usually because you have in-game tasks to do often. 19:57:48 AOL is only finally shutting down dial up, so it only now lets us drop it as minimum target hardware /s 19:58:02 Hrm. well, the idea is that you *don't* have to do game tasks often :/ 19:58:18 At least after you've set your stuff up. 19:58:51 I may do just that 19:58:57 But OK, point taken about even piddling stuff being enough. 19:59:20 I am for hardening PoW FWIW 19:59:41 I'm just for doing it in ways which benefit Monero 19:59:47 I'm also in support of a finality layer 20:00:20 but how do you harden pow against an adversary with access to all this general compute, and a mining economy that just searches for the highest profit? 20:00:54 pos finality layer 20:00:57 :P 20:01:01 bring back the timelock, and institute a mining bond, where super awesome block rewards mature in 50 years? 20:01:17 its not inflation if its in the future 20:01:23 * moneromooo not be alive in 50 years -_- 20:01:57 i still think there's an option 3. get someone to pump the price 20:02:13 we dont talk about price, but perhaps we should talk about price 20:02:47 Tell everyone to "set unit micrononero", see price go x1000 because idiots. 20:03:15 we're trying to fight economics with code 20:03:59 eeesh 3.2 gh/s 20:04:30 whatever you guys want to do it might have to be done very quickly at this rate 20:04:46 ^ 20:04:57 quickly is what they want 20:05:14 quickly, rushed, not thought out, reactive 20:05:39 moneromooo: Want to merge my CCS immediately despite having effectively no community review 🥹 20:05:41 They are running out of money porbably, so they need to reach their marketing goal soon. 20:05:53 I think it has one upvote and zero downvotes. That's technically review 20:06:03 well if they actually do hit 51% and then actually do orphan all other blocks it will turn into a fix thats needed immediately 20:06:06 (I'm joking, I promise) 20:06:25 their will be a big re-org 20:06:36 woopty doo 20:06:58 there. damnit 20:07:25 We can do Ethereum within a month if necessary but ugh. The best bet may be by-default DNS checkpoints _if and only if_ the checkpointed chain is one hour (30 blocks) old. 20:07:49 Obvious issues are obvious, but immediate solution is immediate. 20:07:50 yeah, that thing was set up to be training wheels, so might as well use it 20:08:09 their hash rate is back down to 2.96 gh/s 20:08:34 they might just rent a bunch of hash rate so it shows as 51% on miningpoolstats, they can get their screenshots for twitter, and then move on 20:09:04 i mean, if pool miners just hop to the most profitable pool, should we really keep them around and not kick them off with the block signing thing? :P 20:09:25 Quick vassalise us to eth for security might be a terrible ideas in monero reputation 20:09:26 zombie thought will not die 20:09:33 Now might be a good time to rent some hashpower for ourselves. 20:09:52 monero reputation? how do you think monero's "reputation" will be if qubic is mining all blocks 20:09:54 how much is available tevador 20:10:00 I know 20:10:11 but sovereignty is as important as security 20:10:17 They might rent hashrate? They rent whole datacenters 20:10:42 I think at this point only desperate good solution is rent more hashrate than them meanwhile we search for a real fix 20:10:53 well start renting then lol 20:10:58 im doing 20:10:58 I see 200+ MH/s on nicehash 20:11:19 I rented 20 mh/s the other day but only for a few hours 20:11:41 DC-2 and DC-3 are totally not sus in this list https://p2pool.io/u/edafad62eed4f695/Screenshot%20from%202025-08-14%2022-11-16.png 20:11:45 yeah we really suffer from economic doing this battle against AI huge market funding 20:12:51 Their AI is just a marketing BS. 20:13:00 lol do they really label it as DC? 20:13:04 yep 20:13:05 DataCenter?? 20:13:14 no, District Columbia :D 20:14:21 Distributed Computing 20:14:24 we lost the matrix bridge 20:14:44 Their AI tasks = calculating popcount using AVX2. I have disassembled their binary. 20:15:03 why disassemble it if they have source code 20:15:10 https://github.com/qubic/Qiner/ 20:15:13 They do? 20:16:05 tevador: Sure I just mean the market economy give them ALOT of ressource 20:16:06 This is the reference code. They run some optimized version 20:16:12 It doesn;t look like the source of the binary I saw. 20:16:31 probably more than what we can chew.. 20:16:36 https://github.com/Aigarth/aigarth-it 20:17:30 having a fix ready should be priorities at this point 20:19:34 tevador: pools develop their own miners 20:20:35 They/qubic may want to keep this rate for an extended period of time for another marketing round. Their site shows ~55% hashrate because difficulty adjustment hasnt fully happened yet. This seems vaguely accurate to a passerby because some of the same numbers are on other "neutral" sites. Real hash is still probably in the high 30s though as previously. Or that's my best guess anyway 20:21:48 don't know about high 30s 20:21:52 theyre at 3.12 gh/s 20:22:04 thats what the pool API is reporting. 20:22:13 Yes, their pool software downloads binaries from the pool and executes them. It looks a lot like C&C for some botnet. 20:22:22 I am mining at 10 gh/s 20:22:40 I think they've been fairly honest about their reported hash rate 20:23:00 how they get it is up for discussion, but I haven't seen them outright lie about their hash rate yet 20:23:21 Are you for real? 20:23:25 tevador if looks like a botnet, walks like a botnet and quacks like a botnet... 20:23:34 yes 20:23:46 the raw number 20:24:02 yes, all their pool miners download binaries from the pool and run them. These binaries get updated often. 20:24:02 I know their sites always overrepresent the % pool share 20:24:21 > [1:48 PM]soupersoup: we kind of are a botnet😂the only difference is our pool is made up of willing participants not other people’s hijacked systems 20:25:56 i wonder if they're trying to get for that 50 blocks in the last 100 stat 20:25:56 Yes, because actual botnets won't touch it. They can get taken over themselves if they just run some random binaries from someone. 20:27:10 they've already had the 50 blocks in last 100 I think they are going for the % of known hash rate on miningpoolstats now that they are reporting api again to it 20:27:46 Yes, what I said but shorter 20:28:33 I guess we'll learn how many people understand difficulty adjustment 20:28:38 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/HxIEQOXhjWwlFqCQpRSwfQUV 20:28:39 Then how is the hashrate 6.9ghz when the total network is only 5 ghz 20:28:56 thats like a 24 hour average 20:29:10 they just started reporting again with like the past hour or 2 20:29:23 Network hashrate is an artificial number calculated from the target difficulty. 20:29:38 Oh ok so on average they get around 38% 20:30:55 Now might be a good time to rent some hashrate... 20:32:52 Yeah 20:32:54 maybe 20:34:38 POW enjoyers losing their minds right now 20:35:40 Botnet operators? 20:37:42 my monerod reporting net hash 5.39 GH/s 20:38:00 Network hashrate is an artificial number calculated from the target difficulty. <> @captain 20:38:30 Your monerod reports hashrate as what is presumed based on the rolling 720 block difficulty 20:38:49 It will never show an accurate number unless the hashrate remains static for 720 blocks 20:39:51 Modify code to show it for last 10 blocks ? 20:39:51 if someone mines with 10gh for 360 blocks, the monerod hash will only show increase of 5gh 20:40:07 Its a function of the difficulty adjustment, which is 720 blocks 20:40:28 Also, when qubic selfish mines, the difff doesnt go up 20:40:55 but the DAA is also based on the rolling 720 blocks? so hashrate wrt to difficulty / likelihood of winning blocks is accurate ? 20:41:34 Yes 20:42:29 Which is why more, if not selfish mining, more blocks will be added to the chain than every 120secs. If selfish mining, they replace blocks and avoid diff adjustment 20:43:03 That’s the same with miningpoolstats. Are they lying about their hashrate? 20:43:32 Man, for the 3rd time 20:43:53 Network hashrate is an artificial number calculated from the target difficulty. <> [@barthman132:matrix.org](https://matrix.to/#/@barthman132:matrix.org) 20:44:24 Oh thank you I’m dumb 20:45:23 100 block estimate ia ~7 GH/s, so it matches 20:45:54 for a more accurate estimation we would need to do something like this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.00082 afaik 20:45:55 > "if miners regularly broadcast status reports of their partial proof-of-work, the hash rate estimates are significantly more accurate at a cost of slightly higher bandwidth" 20:46:56 Righr, @tevador. Unless qubic mines for 24hrs, the monerod reported hashrate wont hit 7gh 20:48:07 if they choose to mine honestly, looks like they are only 500mh away from 51% 20:48:47 if it's really a botnet, it would explain why they do it intermittently.. those marathons might be risky for them loosing bots if users notice? 20:49:17 A cloud provider renting hashrate while they have less load ? 20:49:58 Can be bought for cheap as its idle machines anyways 20:51:30 No need to panic, right ? ArticMine 20:52:17 tevador: It's @binaryfate you'd discuss that with, if you wanted to. 20:53:22 22:48:47 if it's really a botnet, it would explain why they do it intermittently.. those marathons might be risky for them loosing bots if users notice? 20:53:34 the intermittent is based of their internal tick number 20:53:47 it's fuzzy but all nodes go on based on that 20:54:21 it'd be more noticeable if it's spinning fans every 60m 20:55:40 ah okay 20:55:55 kayabanerve: I'm just suggesting it. Use of the general fund should probably be decided by the core team. 20:56:16 Yes, but binaryFate is the one who actively spends the general fund and the point person to ping. 20:57:14 also [@articmine:monero.social](https://matrix.to/#/@articmine:monero.social) 20:57:30 Luigi1111 probably doesnt care 20:57:38 (i mean, he'll likely say yolo" 21:00:11 kayabanerve @kayabanerve:matrix.org: I was looking at your list of possible solutions for strengthening Monero's proof of work, and was wondering, why doesn't Monero implement delayed proof of work like Pirate Chain (ARRR) by notarizing on BTC's blockchain every 10 blocks? Pirate notarizes on Komodo every 10 blocks, and Komodo notarizes on Litecoin every 10 of its blocks. An at tacker would have to simultaneously attack all 3 chains in order to attack Pirate. Can you add this proposal to your list? 21:00:43 does anyone have an estimate of hashrate costs vs. contents of general fund? ie how long could it fund x hashrate, to determine likelihood of outlasting adversary 21:01:20 The concept is listed within the table, that isn't the security properties of Komodo's implementation, and I'm unsure anyone in Komodo actually benefits from Komodo's implementation. 21:01:49 I'd suggest to rent ~200 MH/s for 15 hours. Their "marathon" should end by then. 21:02:09 Using Bitcoin as a finality layer (in the table) would require simultaneously running a Bitcoin node and only require attacking the Bitcoin blockchain to perform a re-org, so long as a minimal amount of PoW was performed on Monero as to find _any valid block_. 21:02:25 binaryFate: ^^^^^^ 21:02:50 re renting ~200 MH/s 21:03:31 I pinged them on Matrix 21:06:57 @kayabanerve:matrix.org: I was looking at your list of possible solutions for strengthening Monero's proof of work, and was wondering, why doesn't Monero implement delayed proof of work (dPoW) like Pirate Chain (ARRR) by notarizing on BTC's blockchain every 10 blocks? Pirate notarizes on Komodo every 10 blocks, and Komodo notarizes on Litecoin every 10 of its blocks. An attacke r would have to simultaneously attack all 3 chains in order to attack Pirate. Can you add this proposal to your list? 21:09:30 I’m purchasing more hashrate. I suggest everyone else do the same 21:17:20 can anyone help? always getting 127.0.0.1:3333 127.0.0.1 connect error: "connection refused" when trying to start XMRig 21:17:30 tried on two different computers 21:17:33 both WIN11 21:17:39 is it my router? 21:18:07 renting hashrate instead of aws only makes sense if the workers are currently offline.. but I would guess, if they are not rented out, the owner mines anyways? 21:18:15 I did purchase for 500 usd 21:20:48 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/CRJCNBIuFTiNUDkGJweNQjvU 21:20:50 also getting this error 21:22:37 start p2pool first 21:25:02 plz go to [#monero-support:monero.social](https://matrix.to/#/%23monero-support:monero.social) , [#monero:monero.social](https://matrix.to/#/%23monero:monero.social) , or [#p2pool-log:monero.social](https://matrix.to/#/%23p2pool-log:monero.social) for support . 21:25:03 On win11, you might have to exclude the folder containing gupax from windows defender or your antivirus 21:26:20 always add an exclusion to any folder that has anything mining related, this includes monero itself 21:30:25 🤦 thx, somehow I missed that part in the video 21:31:10 Why isn’t Monero’s total hashrate at a new all time high right now? Given Qubic and everyone’s “all hands on deck” response. 21:31:22 It is - its 7gh 21:32:02 Ah kk 21:32:28 The monerod reported hashrate is avg of past 720 blocks. Qubic doesnt mine for 720 blocks straight, so their hashrate is underestimated 21:33:18 thats around 3.1 for qubic and 3.9 for everyone else 21:35:28 yeah im reading through MRR and can't tell if the available rigs are already mining for the owner 21:35:39 but i imagine they would be. you wouldn't want to offer your rigs up for rent and have them sit idle 21:36:26 gg to the supportxmr miner who sold out to qubic. insane tactic to bet on the ponzi scheme chain for some short term profits while risking trust in the one chain committing to CPU mining for the past decade 21:36:33 Will P2Pool download the whole blockchain?! 21:36:51 p2pool doesn't 21:36:59 the fuck are you going to do with all that hash after the qubic ponzi unravels? mine raptor coin? 21:37:09 monero node might depending what you use 21:37:41 we have #p2pool-log / #p2pool-mini for general p2pool conversation (they are bridged to matrix with the new bridge as well) 21:38:13 Kawaii's rental goes from mining xmr for kawaii -> being rented to mine xmr 21:38:15 using gupax, it says "2025-08-14 21:37:02.8695 SideChain add_block: height = 11457572, id = c819fba59938321b07835c87a4d25537f82ef0feeb55f2d53da877711d46d99e, mainchain height = 3477592, verified = 0" 21:38:43 Trying to explain it to a kid in basement running botnets which don’t last forever ? 21:39:01 So yeah, ginger, there maybbe a way to see (not sure), but possible that you are renting a rig that is already mining 21:39:04 that's p2pool's sidechain 21:39:16 it just needs a few recent blocks, the rest is pruned/not needed 21:40:07 i bet the archetyp admin would have had a way to deal with this situation 21:40:33 how convenient that they got him just a few months ago 21:40:53 free archetyp admin 21:41:01 Maybe xenu can help 🤣 21:41:07 Archetype did nothing wrong 21:41:31 https://xcancel.com/kawaiicrypto/status/1950967882747134402 [@gingeropolous:monero.social](https://matrix.to/#/@gingeropolous:monero.social) 21:41:33 Reg the general fund to rent hashes: does this just not make attacking monero good for business? Even promotes more people to park more reseources available for people to rent (with both good and bad intentions) - if there are only x hashes a available now - then all this renting is going to make the situation worse in the future 21:41:34 Rental price on MRR seems too high for those rigs to be already mining. Just an observation. 21:41:39 https://matrix.monero.social/_matrix/media/v1/download/matrix.org/TAnRhXHgAqiIiDxbmfSWENkX 21:41:40 mining now! 21:43:51 He was renting to someone who was being naughty last week, and now he gets general fund moneys at 4x the. Normal rate because of that? xD 21:44:26 yeah, the premium there is crazy.. it's like mining for 500$/XMR 21:44:29 Interesting why have there been so few orphaned blocks so far today? 21:45:36 they must have changed their strategy, lots of push back and negativity from the community 21:45:37 Why orphan when you get paid in xmr ? 21:45:57 they have not done selfish today at all 21:46:29 their stuff broke or don't have the power to achieve it consistently, or forgot to do it 21:46:38 Thank cumfrmbrhind 21:46:55 how many XMR per day on 10,000 H/s 😅 21:48:33 Not much but it’s honest work 21:49:24 so beside renting more hashrate what are the eventual solution for future protection ? 21:49:45 Because they dont have to increase the difficulty (which increases their chance of success) 21:50:56 Success of reorg or double spend 21:50:59 Plowsof, i tend to agree 🙃. i said as much on trocador room 21:51:35 That renting hashrate may actually be paying qubic directly 21:51:54 Renting hash from qubic :p 21:52:03 And that the hash you rent may be used against you when you stop renting 21:52:11 Where are they getting that hashrate? Servers or botnets? 21:52:18 lol 21:52:30 who knows where the rental hashrate comes from 21:52:49 Someone offers 50mh for rent, where could this possibly come from? 21:52:57 Turn your miners OFF and park them available to rent 21:53:02 $$$$$ 21:53:08 Some miners on p2pool have 80mh. Where does this come from? 21:53:09 If it’s consistently mining, its rented servers and they have good budget 21:53:32 fighting fire with fire... something is sketchy :D 21:53:48 what if we do like qbic and mine let say 30% of the time for AI so it pay the miner much more and attrack hashrate 21:54:24 Ai with cpu, right lol 21:54:29 ikr 21:54:30 qubic's ai is vaporware. They probably just mine xmr 21:54:35 idk maybe something to dig 21:55:15 Doesn’t help with current state of xmr 21:57:23 ~40% of the last 100 blocks are found by qubic. 21:57:25 I assume they have same hashrate around 40% of total network, the same as they was used to selfish mining and block orphaning, but now its “honest mining” 21:57:33 no no, can't you see? the ticks are actually the heart-beat of the AGI being coming to life. the technological singularity, the beast system everybody bows to /s 21:57:59 everything of this happen bc price of xmr too low, its so sad. 21:58:01 +100 qubic 21:58:58 i have some orders for 180-200 after looking to weekly chart 21:59:53 But didn’t you hear? According to “very smart people” the price of Monero actually doesn’t matter. /s 22:00:10 its true 22:00:12 i know :((( 22:00:21 there a very weird culture inside xmr 22:00:32 monero have its own value 22:00:33 Yes even with 40 the botnets will defend xmr /s 22:00:41 Yes even with $40 the botnets will defend xmr /s 22:00:55 /voteban elongated :> 22:01:05 Thanks 22:01:07 what if those people are actually real states sponsor bots 22:01:47 so part of community is already hijack 22:02:21 or some 'faction' at least 22:03:09 botnet has contribute to this equally to the 'anti capital anarchist' faction 22:03:25 PoW need capital to function securely 22:03:48 and also redistribute to real people and not a malware owner 22:11:43 with tevador proposal of basing the data set on blockchain data, the botnets would not be usable but hashrate rental would require it is provided alongside nodes, right? 22:16:39 Yes, the miners would need to get node data from somewhere (local node or from a pool) 22:19:29 plowsof: thx for the rig rental perspective lol 22:20:34 Just an intern over here but would this idea make sense and be deployable quickly?? : 22:20:35 What if we use general fund to sweeten the p2pool payouts? So rather than putting funds towards renting hash , we put funds towards adding a bonus payment to anyone mining on p2pool . They get their standard mining payouts it plus the bonus. I think xenu may have alluded to this . I don’t if others have discussed. Is this possible and easy to deploy? 22:20:50 my mind doesn't think in schemes :( 22:21:04 Too pure sadly 22:21:13 i can rent hash and put it on p2pool 22:21:24 rent from me 22:21:40 plowsof: I was trained by Cat 22:21:51 only if you charge me 2x the xmr that will be earned 22:22:55 wont gonna compete 22:23:22 first time seeing current effort going down over time rather than up :/ 22:23:25 honestly xmr need to x10 to see real gain in security and hashrate 22:23:45 we need a long term solution here imo 22:24:01 on nano at least 22:24:03 Take out loans and buy up the orderbooks 22:24:21 either finite layer or hybrid seem the fix 22:24:45 See, the problem with price is that we base it on exchanges that often dont have xmr for sale 22:24:51 we need a mechanic that make 51% virtually impossible 22:25:20 at the same time keep our sovereignty 22:25:31 And we promote an environment that avoids using cexs _for acquiring xmr_, while simultaneously using those same exchanges as tour price oracle 22:25:52 id say lets focus on code as dev cannot control the market :)) 22:26:05 I think, as a oart of this effort, if you use a dex, you should raise your prices 10x, and cause a raid on exchanges 22:26:55 the problem with talking about solution to bring technology to help adoption is it take incredible time to create 22:27:06 like dex and stuff 22:27:19 also will depend on market reaction which is hardly calculable 22:27:25 yeah. This isnt monero-markets, but that room isnt bridged to irc. So, sorry but i had to say it 22:27:54 And price affects miners and that affects security 22:28:02 If were talking about security budget, the biggest psyop is that we base everything on what cexs say, while avoiding them.. makes no sense. Raise your prices 22:28:07 really need something in the code that prevent any 51% attack and retain our independences 22:28:51 How do you raise it when buyer can’t withdraw it ? 22:29:25 Raise on dex* 22:30:00 I dont fully understand finite layer, but as for hybrid I think the staking system will work in our favor to help price for the PoW compenants 22:30:51 we will have to deal with botnet also . 22:30:56 100% 22:31:23 https://electriccoin.co/blog/the-trailing-finality-layer-a-stepping-stone-to-proof-of-stake-in-zcash/ 22:35:18 thanks 22:56:55 https://miningpoolstats.stream/monero 22:56:55 Are these numbers accurate? Or can Qubic be faking their hash rate? 23:03:13 30 block window I see qbic owning 56% of the block 23:03:19 Csn they fake? Ya. Are they? Not likely 23:03:26 01:03:13 30 block window I see qbic owning 56% of the block 23:03:39 that is some major cherry picking, they will win more, less, same as all pools 23:04:04 100 have 43, and can't bother with longer periods 23:04:06 tendency is they win a little bit more each day, until the day happen... 23:04:33 tendency is worrying, why waiting for fatidic moment to happen 23:04:36 they aren't even selfish mining atm, that'd get them a couple more like last time 23:04:42 01:04:33 tendency is worrying, why waiting for fatidic moment to happen 23:04:47 we gonna end up with " we need a fix the next hours or so" 23:04:53 there is no "monero" ceo that can push an update 23:05:07 the community has to agree. every node operator 23:05:13 Even reaching close to 51 is a point of concern 23:05:59 you are looking at monero with the eyes of a token with central devs/core team and while we have several members that are core to monero, they don't "own" it 23:06:34 any "fix" that breaks consensus means chain split. so it'd have to happen in the long term future 23:06:48 there are still some people on previous monero hardfork 23:06:58 that was 2022 23:06:59 at this rate qbic gonna chain split without our consent 23:07:23 that's not a chain split 23:07:32 I mean with 51% they can 23:07:37 even thats not their goal 23:07:44 nop, chain split is breach in consensus, not orphaning 23:08:01 meaning two incompatible chains due to code. they cannot agree with each other no matter how long they are 23:08:19 It’s pow, hashrate rules 23:08:44 how they can refuse all block after 51% but the whole community cannot refuse block from qbit 23:08:52 we holder more than 51% 23:08:56 holding 23:08:56 refusing/orphaning is not a chain split 23:09:23 they can attempt to orphan everything. but if someone later mines on the orphan chain, they could make that be the main one 23:09:35 a chain split makes that impossible due to consensus differences. 23:09:45 hm 23:09:47 say when Bitcoin split into BTC / BCH / BSV etc. 23:09:59 they effectively become different coins and networks 23:10:09 They can keep mining empty blocks as long as they like and halt our txs 23:10:35 there is no central call list to tell people to update nodes. we don't even know how many total are running, we can just estimate 23:11:14 There is a list for exchanges 23:12:15 ArticMine should we panic ? Or everything is fine and wait for actual attack 23:12:16 a change could be made to filter blocks that match a certain rule until it's part of other chains, but that can be bypassed 23:12:30 --enforce-dns-checkpointing does exist 23:12:51 also --enable-dns-blocklist but that's mostly for active attacks against monerod peers 23:13:00 our attacker gain hashrate increase each couple day or so 23:13:11 core needs time to think, no hasty decisions 23:13:17 waiting for something to happen is just suicidal 23:13:25 sure I agree 23:13:38 jumping off a cliff just to do something is suicidal 23:13:51 also doing nothing is suicidal at this point 23:14:09 I mean how suicidal is double spend 23:14:23 are top 10 coin ever been double spend ? 23:14:59 kinda suicidal on speculative potential 23:15:05 ? 23:15:08 the community is banded together so things can probably move faster than usual 23:15:27 but again, a release going out that instantly makes a change will do chain split 23:15:36 that would kill anything 23:15:40 suddenly two moneros 23:15:43 Monero is tiny, if we do have a double spend our record will be tainted forever 23:15:45 Maybe rename to something else after that 23:15:53 meh, monero classic exist and we exist 23:16:27 change and fix shouldnt be view as suicidal 23:16:49 It’s only been a few days 23:16:55 it's open source, make a change 23:16:59 submit it 23:17:07 Been sleeping on botnet problem for years 23:17:11 Takes time to realize 23:17:17 And gulp 23:17:18 it then will get reviewed. maybe it's good to release 23:17:21 yup 23:17:34 then people need to update, which, might not be reachable for months 23:17:41 as said before, bandaids are needed 23:18:02 and longer term changes have been discussed 23:18:13 id say botnet are 50% responsible for this attack to happen bc they took large part of the pie that should goes to dedicated miner who would has reinvest otherwise into security 23:18:31 ok hi585858 what do YOU want to do 23:18:33 botnet doesnt reinvest, they malware more and sell more 23:18:47 the long term is going to to be the actual solution in a way that community agrees 23:18:56 botnet = literal cancer 23:19:18 bandaids, these can be suggested here. some are quick, others less so and depend on people updating, but can be done safely 23:20:14 at this point we should implore qbit supremacy to not kill us and leave us alone lol 23:20:45 they live on marketing and hype 23:20:54 lets gave them the win 23:20:59 so they stop 23:21:00 what win? 23:21:10 idk official annoucement you guys win you can stop 23:21:14 Lol 23:21:17 again official announcement 23:21:46 there is a sort of small consensus of people regularly doing work for monero but none own it 23:21:54 there is no Monero CEO 23:22:07 i can be Monero CEO if you vote 23:22:09 this is not a discord hype project 23:22:15 lol 23:22:24 see dezinfik, that IS an actual suggestion 23:22:32 no one respects the privacy 23:22:35 they will 23:22:37 one day 23:23:02 i think this was all planned, now monero will sky rocket to +500$ 23:23:10 fix now fix now is not a suggestion and everyone is aware of how important it is. people here are volunteers or somewhat donation driven giving their time to monero 23:23:13 today i sold my stash of btc, won't touch xmr 23:23:29 elongated: hey how are you? 23:23:29 R u drunk 23:23:37 Sober 23:23:39 do you remember me ? 23:23:49 there is no "dev fee" that goes to a group of people by default. there is a core fund where people can donate from what is more or less agreed is the group of people that have importance in Monero 23:23:51 well donation driven is losing steam each and every day 23:23:51 oh you don't :) 23:23:57 because thing plumetting 23:24:08 for price talk go elsewhere, please 23:24:09 the 90xmr for dev is now worth 60 23:24:11 but i do know some things about you, stay sober <3 23:24:16 i go to clean now, that's my job 23:24:52 sure I now dev working hard behind the scene 23:24:56 again, this is not a speculation room or based on delivering pure trading gains to people 23:25:11 no, you don't. there is no appointed "dev" 23:25:21 nobody as spoke anything about trading gains lol 23:25:33 I am just a random data hoarder as well 23:25:34 i know something but i can't really speak about it, in next days i will reveal everything 23:25:47 their dev monetary goal reducing so developpment might reduce, its all link 23:25:53 ? 23:25:58 dev monetary goal? 23:26:02 most are volunteers 23:26:08 30k for 3 month now is 20k 23:26:15 some specific tasks are funded via bounties or similar 23:26:21 again 23:26:26 for price talk, go elsewhere 23:26:36 its part of why we are incapable to secure the PoW concensus against a qbit fruads 23:26:39 I run p2pool observer for fun, for example. one day decided to just do it as I saw p2pool appear 23:26:47 wrote all the stuff, done 23:27:03 we chose pow so we are fundamentally link to price 23:27:04 That is a problem you know ? Devs need to pay bills 23:27:07 stop talking like it doesnt matter 23:27:15 its time to agree on this 23:27:22 price is important for the functionality of privacy 23:27:30 its core fundamental because POW 23:28:00 personally idc, I want privacy, could be 1$ or 1000$ 23:28:22 as an example of what I mean on why it's hard to move fast hi585858 here's some monero nodes https://monero.fail/ 23:28:38 these are tracked nodes. probably no one knows who runs about half of these 23:28:55 mining pools can update, exchanges can 23:29:17 but then suddenly for years after people discover they are on the wrong chain when loading their wallets :) 23:29:42 so again, hi585858, what would you do as a "fix" or suggestion to do now. a bandaid 23:29:48 as long term solutions are on the work 23:30:18 Lol i knew since 2018 CPU only without fixing botnet will bring shit 23:30:31 Price depends on xmr market gdp in long term 23:30:40 randomx at least killed the web mining :) 23:30:54 for things node operators can do now, --enforce-dns-checkpointing is a thing 23:30:57 should have stay on asic and slowly develop from there 23:31:12 https://docs.getmonero.org/interacting/monerod-reference/#server:~:text=block).%0A%0A(%3D648000000)-,%2D%2Denforce%2Ddns%2Dcheckpointing,-The%20emergency%20checkpoints 23:31:31 > If encountered block hash does not match corresponding checkpoint, the local blockchain will be rolled back a few blocks, effectively blocking following what MoneroPulse operators consider invalid fork 23:31:48 that lets someone in a basement decide which chain is legit. 23:32:01 at least they can't go back in time that way 23:32:07 hm 23:32:12 https://docs.getmonero.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/ 23:32:32 but it's not designed really to work with short reorgs 23:36:13 they did slowly develop from there, and the ASIC were way more than 50%, I don't have the number, but was it 80 or 90%? controlled by a single entity 23:36:33 they were worse than qubic is but they stayed silent and never marketed/hyped stuff up to make the news 23:36:51 should have block them and open up discution with multiple manufacturer 23:36:58 kaspa has done it 23:37:10 the block was to move to randomx 23:37:21 months later their asics found their way to markets 23:37:24 qbit 50 last block is 56% now 23:39:14 they have the hashrate to achieve it, but remember, it's their long term output. compare full 24h they are doing 24/7 mining instead of specific segments 23:39:41 luck can go up/down and you might find 10 blocks (and suddenly get 100% in 10 block range) then nothing for hours 23:39:52 I look forward to Shai's analysis. I know he's being paid for his work here, but he's not a Qubic or Monero lover. I think it'll be somewhat impartial. 23:40:30 refer to effort probabilities here (not time) for effort and cummulative time https://p2pool.observer/calculate-share-time?hashrate=1&magnitude=1 23:41:16 the numbers are long term 23:41:38 but look at the real variance https://irc.gammaspectra.live/5bd5dbc09d616e2d/image.png 23:41:45 sorry, empty pic 23:41:52 https://irc.gammaspectra.live/05deffee08eeb80a/image.png 23:42:03 clipboard loves trolling me I guess 23:42:20 p2pool has gotten several blocks back to back 23:42:24 He already posted on X 23:42:44 Not a full review 23:42:47 yeah, preliminary results on https://x.com/DesheShai/status/1956001181546709005 23:43:08 full one across multiple marathons is what they are trying to get a record on 23:44:26 this addresses the point that they hit 80% of blocks in a specific window, but, that does not mean they had 80% hashrate of the window 23:44:59 right, of course 23:45:18 mine long enough with a high percentage of hashrate and you can take a screenshot at the right time to make it seem like you have way more than you do 23:46:28 and of course it's fishy that cfb turned off reporting at that time, claimed 51%, and turned reporting back on after many miners selfishly (not using this term in a derogatory way) defected from other big pools and so it shows a very high percentage 23:46:50 what I can tell you is that chain was proper long 23:47:00 and they waited for the network to catch up to release it 23:47:07 to make a longer orphan chain 23:47:20 All this to say, I think 51% is unlikely. I also don't think them reaching 51% actually matters. They've shown what they've set out to show. 23:47:54 but as they are experimenting with, if they don't care about profits directly from mining a coin and just care about pumping other coin or not even, just want to harm monero or bitcoin. someone can dump money into it until people move 23:48:12 And very interesting to see the ramifications over the past few days in the XMR community. I know my faith in PoW is definitely deeply shaken 23:48:20 long term solutions are being discussed in various room about this, it's very nice to see 23:48:49 How is it unlikely? You can rent servers and mine, just need enough budget which state actors have; he just shy away from having 51% 23:48:49 I really love random x so this is a tough pill to swallow 23:48:50 PoW assumes a logical attacker and ... security budget 23:48:52 I once read something about how PoW is a good way to distribute coins. Bootstrap a network. Then maybe PoS. I, like articmine, have concerns and issues with PoS. 23:49:11 no matter the security budget you could get to a point where you buy a country just to produce CPUs or ASICs 23:49:19 if someone wants to burn enough money 23:49:29 same. And you know what? I'm not frustrated we did randomX. Monero tried for the true 1 CPU 1 vote dream. Nothing wrong with running that science experiment. But it is important to be able to say when an experiment goes awry, or outright fails. Bitter pill to swallow indeed. 23:49:57 and, hate me if you want, I'm glad it's a little coin like Qubic that showed this than an actual powerful actor that wanted to harm Monero more than pump their little shitcoin 23:50:07 You have concerns about pos securing the chain ? Hybrid is not acceptable? 23:50:24 we should do peer review of every block coming in :) 23:50:52 I'm actually probably happier with hybrid stuff than most people on here. I appreciate Firo's masternode finality scheme. It's literally just an incentivized finality layer with high collateral. 23:50:54 pow was also seen for anyone to be able to mine a couple of monero for their own use, in secret 23:51:06 this also has this feature: anyone can do that. and they can bring more power 23:51:18 My faith in pow isnt shakened. But i think monero has design issues that make some things more dangerous than other chains (>10 block reorgs are relatively harmless to users on other chains) 23:51:45 Yes. This was the true dream. Moving ASICs around, you can get stopped and they can get confiscated. But everyone has a computer. So someone with no XMR can still get some by taking a computer across borders and mining. 23:52:04 With PoS, you need some of the coin first. It's non-accessible unless you are sold the coin. Hence PoW boostrapping. 23:52:40 I'm of the "PoW sucks, except for all the other methods which suck worse" point of view 23:52:45 yes I dont like fully pos but hybrid seem best of both world 23:52:55 whereas before I was "PoW is pretty good, all the other methods suck" point of view 23:53:06 some pos chains are clearly dominated by small groups of VCs or early investors 23:53:06 I haven't followed the long discussions here that much but finality layer and keeping pow would still allow someone let's say with 90% of pow to ... not include transactions they don't like 23:53:11 pow is only good as long economic fallow 23:53:17 With 50-80% of the coins stakes at all times 23:53:19 which is happening in bitcoin with specific pools 23:53:30 I've obviously known about PoW weaknesses, but sometimes it takes something smacking you in the face to get it to go from head knowledge to heart knowledge :P 23:53:52 hm 23:54:00 or exchanges, although that's not as big a problem with Monero since we're not on many exchanges :P 23:54:02 I really, really dont like "buy-in pos" 23:54:17 Same. 23:54:28 Yeah. Coins like zano are secretly staked by exchanges 23:54:36 im from the schoool whjere I think price is independent of the number of exchanges, we can be on 0 exch and be 1 trilion dollars, depend if people hold or not 23:54:42 Okay, fork date cubic comes with 51% and only they can stake 23:55:01 Can't blame them either. I'd stake them too if I owned the exchange 23:55:26 Particl has like 0.75 users who own 0.05% of the supply, and 7 whales who own the rest% 23:55:31 01:54:02 I really, really dont like "buy-in pos" 23:55:49 this I agree with. but there were comments I need to read also showing why it was a bad idea to be mining only 23:56:07 So you have 8 million coins staked, indefinitely, while sitting on a ledger somewhere 23:56:30 If a coin starts as PoS, I think it's doomed from a distribution perspective 23:56:44 These whales dont provide liquidity, they just hoard. They dont use the ecosystem, rhey just hoard. Ans once NGU, theyll dump 23:56:54 If a coin is boostrapped with PoW, I think it mitigates a lot of the scares of migrating, especially if PoW stays in the picture 23:56:59 so pow to pos has somewhat more natural distributive attribute 23:57:00 again, not advocating a migration to full PoS 23:57:08 You are seriously concerned with ngu 23:57:32 its been argued against, but i'm still only OK with bootstrapping POS with coinbases 23:57:39 Don’t worry, we have vendors who will sell daily weekly for their supplies 23:57:43 Me? 23:57:53 No, stakers are 23:58:13 They ruin the ecosystem by hoarding the supply like some sort of stock investor 23:58:35 Yes, pos is not just about number game; just pow can’t protect a small coin like xmr 23:58:53 Some dude had 2 million coins, but you cant buy that anywhere 23:58:56 Has* 23:59:14 yeah, the yields% that are usually done for by staking is ... waay too high to what monero, already on tail emission, is 23:59:23 These past few days have been busy with defcon, but I've been trying to stay up to date with the happenings. After some thought (for whatever my opinions are worth), I've come to the conclusion that there is only room for a handful of PoW coins in the space. 23:59:24 "small coin" << so youre the one talking about ngu then? 23:59:25 and changing that is a no-no 23:59:35 Dex liquidity issue ? 23:59:56 qbit has over 51% last 80 block and it keep rising