00:00:03 No, liquidity period. 80% of zano is staked, which is why the coin pumps on 0 liquidity 00:00:04 Small as in the community the number of miners the actual security cost 00:00:28 Which is why a block reward split of 80-20 miners-stakers might be feasible? Still a way to get money without staking while also having finality layer 00:00:29 you say that like we can flip a switch and turn off the network, hi585858 00:00:29 Zano is premined shitcoin, why are we discussing that ? 00:00:40 44 out last 100, indeed 00:00:44 I said 10:1, with only coinbases stakable 00:00:50 not asking to turn off the network 00:00:59 just sharing actual historical fact happening rn 00:01:02 Monero mined 100k coins in the first 3 days 00:01:05 yeah my numbers are not final, just representative. 10:! works too. 00:01:09 I am recording, trust me hi585858 :) 00:01:12 I hoard the data 00:01:17 So did btc ? 00:01:29 its impressive how they gain from 10 block to 80 block and 00:01:31 now* 00:02:02 So when you talk about premine, remember monero did not have a fair emission, crippleminer, fast emission, etx 00:02:22 another point is, would all coinbases be included, or only ones after certain date? or aged? 00:02:43 all coinbases, i think 00:02:51 which also brings issues about starting up PoS or finality layer that way 00:02:59 Crippleminer was bytecoin 00:03:04 No, it was monero 00:03:16 so spend a coinbase once and it becomes ineligible forever? 00:03:26 Yup, diego 00:03:27 potentially a problem with other coins, but with a tail emission not so much 00:04:01 Afaik it was bytecoin and hence the fork to xmr 00:04:11 Fork was due to premine lies 00:04:51 Monero forked, and had crippleminer and later proprietary miner that wasnt as crippled 00:05:01 the other goal is to see if they turn on their selfish mining today as they said 00:05:02 I am a Monero historian, having read all the things. Monero was cripplemined. Bytecoin people were salty that Bytecoin scam failed, and were saltier that Monero got taken from them, so they released a crippled miner under a different alias, and people used it. 00:05:51 https://da-data.blogspot.com/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html 00:05:59 naw, bytecoin had the crippled miner originally 00:06:07 and monero just inherited it 00:07:00 cripple miner may have been part of the creating that backstory of bytecoin being around for years 00:08:15 Right. 2-3 weeks of cripple mining before the fix. 00:10:12 I'm trying so hard to hit 20mb blocks on fcmp. Highest is 15mb so far 00:13:18 hard to maintain due to lack of inputs / locked inputs. Started gaming the median by mining an 1/3 blocks as empty, but still run low on inputs before i can get 50 blocks at over 10mb 🙃 00:14:12 this finality layer business would still leave us open to empty block mining and tx censoring etc 00:14:57 And open the door for someone to outspend us 00:16:10 How does tx censoring work ? You can know which decoy is being spent no Addr no amount 00:16:13 and, iiuc, the chain can halt if validators dont come to concensus 00:17:07 For how long ? 00:17:26 How does tx censoring work ? You cant know which decoy is being spent no Addr no amount 00:17:48 Until we hard fork 00:18:33 say they want to prevent p2pool miners from moving coins 00:18:36 Which pos was stuck ? 00:18:43 they can identify who it is due to how p2pool mines 00:18:46 Which pos chain was stuck ? 00:18:50 if they sweep outputs at once 00:19:12 here's some recent ones tied to a specific miner address https://p2pool.observer/sweeps 00:19:28 they might have alternate ways of doing so 00:20:06 P2pool is special case 00:20:30 yes, but they could have a view on an exchange transactions, for example 00:20:58 With a tfl? Idk 00:21:02 Okay, same can be said for pow miners ? Pools? 00:21:21 there's ways monero tries to prevent this and make it hard to know where a transaction comes from or who is 00:21:49 Idk what’s special for pos, same can be true with pow 00:21:50 but that's a different problem. if an attacker that can sustain 51% hashrate long term exists 00:21:54 and they know a txid 00:21:59 they can mine everything but that tx 00:22:03 With hybrid attacker needs to control both 00:22:05 and orphan any block that contains it 00:22:18 with finality? 00:22:22 Same for pow 00:22:29 if inclusion is decided solely by pow, no 00:22:32 There can be staking pools too 00:22:37 Yes same for pow or pos 00:38:07 yeah, the yields% that are usually done for by staking is ... waay too high to what monero, already on tail emission, is <<>> someone mentioned that ETH pays 2% 00:39:54 Yes I was always referring to pow, elongated. These messages made no sense on IRC as there was no threading there 00:41:30 For context how it looks in irc https://irc.gammaspectra.live/f8233335da0f5672/IMG_6843.jpeg 00:42:33 I think we need to hire some researcher for pos/pow to make it suitable for xmr 00:42:35 Maybe hire cypherstack to do some research, if they are interested 00:43:02 make ccs people will donate 100% 00:43:44 Diego Salazar: 00:47:11 POS is a change that totally moves the fundamental ways that Monero works. So assume there will be more friction or longer time before it can be done, compared to privacy improvements/changes in signatures and transactions, or even the PoW function change (which I wasn't here for originally!) 00:55:43 fundamental is security and privacy 00:55:59 communism is not 00:56:38 is this the offtopic channel 00:58:36 You can’t reject/move to hybrid, without any research 01:10:35 nioc where are we and where is my beanie? 01:11:16 I am with Cat 01:11:24 meow. 01:11:32 just about to give her her bedtime snack 01:11:55 she remains unconcerned 01:12:17 51% unknown on last 100 block 01:29:24 Hi its me. 01:30:54 Did they get it or did they just barely missed it? 01:31:04 Would cypherstack be interested in hybrid pow/pos research? 01:31:38 Yes but you need to pay in qubic 01:32:04 I jest. Gimme the money and off we go (we're already low key looking at bit) 01:32:52 Can you open a ccs? Or have a ccs on you own website 01:33:43 Oooh I can finally try out the whole Kuno thing, or whatever its called. 01:34:10 Kuno works 01:35:46 Although honestly I was going to float the idea by you all of a general CS retainer. 01:36:20 People and projects are trying to snap up our hours recently and last time I didnt give Monero first dibs on things people got mad at me. 01:37:45 CS retainer is not a bad idea, maybe discuss it in next MRL meeting ? 01:39:36 This can be very useful in order to encourage self custody for staking 01:41:43 I'm against staking pools 01:41:58 Why 01:42:31 What attack vectors do you see 01:42:47 The idea of getting paid to deposit your $ on an exchange or pool - youre essentially no different than a speculative stock investor 01:42:54 Its custodial 01:43:31 Like eth. "32 eth min" so everyone just lets binance stake for them 01:43:57 ... but is a self custody staking pool possible? 01:44:54 yea, and cold staking as well 01:45:58 I see self custody of the stake as a way to mitigate POS attack vectors 01:46:51 https://academy.particl.io/en/latest/part-guides/partguides_staking.html#connect-to-a-staking-pool 01:47:53 > It is highly recommended to be careful about which cold staking pool you choose to stake your funds with. In fact, because you are effectively delegating your staking power to a third-party, staking from a cold staking pool tends to centralize the staking weight of the network. 01:47:53 https://particl.wiki/learn/staking/pools/ 01:48:46 Its similar centralization issue as mining pools 01:48:47 What about a P2P self custody staking pool? 01:50:06 How it will works? 01:50:16 I dont think you'd need a pool for that, and personally i think stakers should have to participate and run their own infra 01:50:47 I really don't like the idea of "whale delegates view key of their ledger, and checks back in 20 years" 01:50:50 So block singing for the staking pools 01:51:00 Signing 01:52:16 In my brief time being around the particl community, ive grown a distaste for the way everybody in pos behaves (passively) 01:52:30 We need to start thinking outside of the box here 01:54:16 Like the Bitmain ASIC version of POS 01:55:45 my outside the box was: hot staking only (wallet needs to be online to sign blocks), coinbases only (initial stake comes from pow. moving the funds removes the stake, irreversibly). 01:55:45 Problem with coinase-only is that an entity like qubic could quickly obtain a majority% if they opt not to sell. 01:57:53 on the other hand, to stake, you'd be forced to contribute pow. You wouldnt be able to stake someone elses coins, or take out a loan to borrow coins against 01:59:17 The "staking pools" in this scenario, would be mining pools who offer extra reward if you dont withdraw your coins. So it doesnt eliminate pool staking (unless paired with signing the blocks) 02:01:34 Block signing doesn't prevent pool mining. At least how I see it 02:02:08 block signing to prevent mining pools from staking your blocks 02:03:27 I mean there are douchbags in every community, but that is just how the world goes 02:03:30 My original idea was to split block production into 4min pow blocks and in pos blocks, with a 10:1 emission split. Reorging beyong 2 blocks on either side would require control of both sides. 02:03:31 i dont think splitting block production was received well either, but the pros are.. 02:03:33 1. Emission is still majority pow. Pos blocks are essential a soft finality 02:03:35 2. P2pool payouts would be larger, due to increased pow block rewars 02:03:37 3. Reorgs would be more difficult due to reduced block frequency 02:03:39 If the signing requirements are only 1% the pools can stake the balance 02:04:07 4 min pow and* 4 min pos 02:05:20 I was thinking along the same lines with a 50%split block reward between POS and POW 02:06:17 i think 10:1 is nicer :P. Majority goes to pow miners, with pos being a bonus 10% for keeping your coinbases locked up to finalize the pow blocks 02:06:32 > Reorgs would be more difficult due to reduced block frequency 02:06:33 I still don't think this is the case when you take into account the amount of work reorged vs just the amount of blocks 02:06:48 50:50 would probably be more attractive to only use pos, and turn off the pow 02:06:58 The real question here is: Does the why is greater than the sum of its parts apply to security? 02:07:44 Whole is greater than the sum of its parts between POW and POS 02:08:29 For security 02:08:38 The diff would be double, so a 1 block reorg is essemtially 2, and if a pos block comes before you reorg, then youd have to reorg that too. Ignorinf pos entirely, its harder to reorg 1 10min block than 5x2min blocks, isnt it? 02:10:35 Or actuallt, that might be roughly the same, but youd have less reorgs on 10min blocks than on 2min ones 02:10:37 The idea is mining on the POS block and staking on the POW block 02:10:57 The probability of reorging a number of block decreases exponentially the more blocks, so mining 1 10 min block is "easier" than 2 consecutive 5 min blocks 02:10:58 So they alternate 02:11:28 Boog, corrected myself here 02:12:44 Yup. Diff targetting 4mins per side should have ~360 pow and ~360 pos blocks per day 02:13:47 if more blocks makes it harder to reorg, how far can you push it? 02:13:50 it wouldn't be roughly the same but yes the amount of random alt blocks should decrease. 02:14:06 1 block per hash would make it impossible without 51% :) 02:14:26 and assuming all blocks reach the whole network instantly 02:21:24 FWIW I was talking about when the attacker has less than 51%, with more than that they can reorg whatever they want (theoretically) with slower or faster blocks 02:33:47 right, so with more frequent blocks, qubic reorgs may not have happened 02:35:59 so increasing block frequency is a band-aid on its own? what are the downsides 02:36:47 No, with more frequent blocks, theyd have more reorgs 02:37:09 If blocks were 1 minute, assuming 100% luck, theyd have 14 block reorg instead of 7 02:37:39 If they had bad luck, they might get 10 blocks, good luck might get 18 blocks 02:38:25 more frequent blocks means you need consistent good luck. But each individual reorg is easier 02:45:05 you have assumed their share of the network has dropped by half 02:45:19 increased by double* 02:45:48 their share of the network is the same 02:46:54 they are still the minority hash power, this is all dependent on their luck 02:47:23 https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/102#issuecomment-2402750881 02:49:30 to get 7 blocks at 20% of the network is 1.4% chance, to get 14 blocks at 20% of the network is 0.04571% 02:49:42 No, i assumed that the diffoculty has decreased by half 02:50:06 their share of the hash power is the same 02:51:48 it wouldn't be double because of the exponential but you get what I mean 02:52:24 Yeah, i'm sleeptalking (i dont sleep) 02:52:52 I see where i muddied my assumption 02:54:03 you would also need to take into account that with more blocks you get more attempts at reorgs 02:54:35 but because it drops off exponentially faster blocks would still be better for protecting PoW 03:01:51 ugh im not seeing that. where in the paper does it directly talk about the different duration of blocks? the targed blocktime? 03:05:51 ah nvm 03:15:59 so 10 second blocks here we come? 03:16:25 p2pool 10 second blocks! 03:16:48 with uncles :) 07:28:54 ArticMine: no. its better to get rid of PoW entirely. it serves zero purpose. the hybrid is only to keep the myth intact for a bit so people handle the transition better. It would be more honest to transition directly instead of putting whool on peoples eyes as you said. ofrnxmr staking from coinbases makes no sense and introduces needless fungibility problems. 07:30:16 1. in the case of Monero we want as low a stake as possible in any case to increase the privacy pool 07:30:17 2. safety is just a liveness problem with the added twist that a third party potentially lost money to a double spend. After the network is restarted and rolled back to a state before the attack, the validators can vote to slash the attacker stake or use it to compensate the third party, if this third party is sufficiently likeable. 07:34:49 the downside of keeping pow around: 1. waste of money 2. slower finality 3. if an attacker spends tens to hundreds of millions on the stake, is he really going to stop at renting a few cpus as well? the attack cost against PoW is miniscule compared to attacking PoS. Also: if the CPUs are bought they can be reused in the next attack. With slashed stake that is impossible. 07:51:55 Probability of consistent luck is lower. If you flip a coin five times vs ten times, getting all heads is 32 times harder in second scenario 07:57:14 For those who are brainstorming ways to secure network from this attack; one way is to look how to make monero more resilient, the other is to poke holes in qubic. Sometimes, the best defence is good offence 07:57:56 “There is no security on this planet, only opportunity” 07:58:17 Then you're just playing whack a mole every time a Qubic appears. Eventually a mole will eat through to the pantry. 07:59:12 I strongly disagree, lived long enough 08:04:37 I disagree. It’s like dealing with a bully. You show you don’t strike and many will try to take a jab at you. You rearrange somebody’s teeth once and nobody will fk with you 08:06:09 I think you are misapplying a lesson you have learnt before. 08:06:34 The immediate obstacle you will face here is that of attribution and reach. 08:07:08 A bully will be in range. Consider a hidden bully with a ranged weapon. 08:07:41 And no, saying "I go to the bully and proceed to rearrange teeth" is not a good answer. 08:11:41 The thing on the internet is that it is easy to "hide" and two opponents have different capabilities. Moreover, use of those capabilities may bring abot attention from a bigger bully, one you do *not* want to face off in a teeth rearrangement situation. 08:12:50 Sounds like you never had to assert yourself or you like to live in fear, but this isn’t the point. It’s monero talk and I was making a metaphor 08:13:26 Plz explain how go rearrange someones face over the internet 08:13:30 How-to* 08:14:35 Or what the actionable implication was 08:31:10 That was metaphor. I was talking about qubic having possible vulnerabilities or wholes that can be exploited 08:31:24 Holes* 08:37:20 The only thing I know is they have halving next week, their “Ai training” is vapourware there isn’t any actual Ai model being trained and they pay. They pay (with btc) for hash on mining rentals and they paid influencers and shai for hit pieces 08:40:30 which makes p2pool miners more exposed to QC risks 08:42:41 Previous message was a reply to DataHoarder: 08:42:41 > they can identify who it is due to how p2pool mines 08:42:53 (IRC can't see replies in Matrix) 08:47:29 My understanding was that a FL would require a limited set of validators, so not that many miners could participate and stake would be low per staker then 09:10:34 often, the higher your stake, the greater the probability to be selected as validator for an "epoch". But the curve can be made flat, too 09:23:45 <0xfffc:monero.social> if anybody can, I need this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10207-024-00849-5 10:28:45 i think the opposite is true. if you have 30% hashrate / chance of winning a block, winning 2 consecutive blocks, would be 0.3^2, for 6, 0.3^6 and so on. so exponentionally harder with each block. if you have 720 blocks a day, it's therefore more likely to to eventually be able to strike, vs 360 blocks a day (= less frequent / slower blocks) 11:38:03 yeah its a doozy to get your head around. searching around infinite space for a winning nonce. but last night it made sense to me . Take a 2 10 minute block vs 10 2 minute block analogy: The attacker's challenge is to secretly out-build the honest chain. It's vastly more difficult for them to get lucky enough to secretly find more than 20 blocks while the honest chain is finding 2 0, than it is for them to secretly find more than 2 blocks while the honest chain is finding 2. 12:04:16 so how fast can we sling blocks around the network 12:10:39 tevador had mentioned that these aren't asics... but the bitmain X5 is still out there. And they could be the main thing on those rental sites (how else do you get 10 MH) 12:10:51 switching to RandomxV2 might go a long way with this situation 12:11:11 i was trying to find the code for that nonce distribution analysis to see how much of them are still on the network but couldn't find it 12:13:48 https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/363.pdf 12:13:49 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.17307 12:13:51 https://jit.ndhu.edu.tw/article/viewFile/2543/2561 12:13:53 https://www.oic-cert.org/en/journal/pdf/2/1/211.pdf 12:13:55 https://scispace.com/pdf/blockchain-system-defensive-overview-for-double-spend-and-467y88mhpz.pdf 12:13:57 https://ece.iit.edu/~yucheng/YCheng_PST22.pdf 12:13:59 https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2024/135245/135245.pdf 12:22:00 I also want to know this 12:23:21 But you said it yourself, the probability of each individual reorg has dropped further than the increase chance you get because of more blocks. 12:24:17