00:14:48 Testing some selfish mining now, but the main chain keeps getting ahead of me so im losing my work :P 00:16:25 Also building binary with tev's checkpoint, and will attempt a deep reorg theren 00:17:47

how do we do this in s decentralized way? 00:18:05

what is the core team gets compromised or the keys for checkpointing is compromised 00:18:13

what if 00:19:21 the sky is falling 00:23:17 ofrnxmr: I see your orphans: https://testnetnode1.moneroconsensus.info/ 00:23:48 I broadcast 1 chain so far 00:24:07 going for a deeper one 00:24:45 Lets go.. 8 or 9 blocks this time 00:25:23 Changing these domains, right? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/389e3ba1df4a6df4c8f9d116aa239d4c00f5bc78/src/checkpoints/checkpoints.cpp#L320-L324 00:26:11 Yeah 00:26:32 Im going to test locally first before attacking the public testnet 00:28:14 To really test it we would want to mine a longer chain starting just below 2813706. Do you agree? 00:29:11 We would want to test it with an active script updating the DNS records, but for now it can be tested with the static height. If one of us has enough hashpower 00:29:27 Yeah, going to pop my local down to like 715, then bring attacking chain to 705 and then attempt to reorg the 715 daemon 00:30:21 Just to see if it works at all :P 00:40:27 Just did a 9 block on the tip 00:40:34 Going to try the checkpoints now 00:40:57 My selfish method does work, and i imagine is what qubic is doing 00:42:04 Its hard to keep up with main chain though, so they must be losing a lot of blocks while trying to get lucky enough to get and stay ahead 00:42:34 When i tried at 500h/s, i was lost the 70% of my blocks .. 00:43:13 Probably just one thread is mining on testnet. Net hash is 620 H/s. 00:49:55 Im testing the dns checkpoints now.. lets see if this works 00:55:59 Well, that wasnt successful. Checking to see why not. Maybe it didnt download the checkpoints and i need to decrease the timer, or maybe need to enable testnet checkpoints 00:57:24 tev said ^ 00:57:25 > It seems that testnet checkpoints cannot be enabled anyways without changing the code. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_core.cpp#L267 00:58:47 So, change that line, too? Probably can just remove `m_nettype != MAINNET || ` 00:58:55 Yeah, duh 00:59:31 Round 2 in a sec 01:00:57 On some of my testnet nodes I got `E Failed to parse block from blob` a lot on default log level. 01:02:24 From my 9 block reorg? 01:03:11 happened right after the 9 block re-org 01:03:34 happened on two of the three nodes I checked. 01:05:13 I think the dns chdckpoinfs need to have every checkpoint in them 01:06:08 They need to agree with the hardcoded checkpoints? 01:06:10 ``` 01:06:11 2025-08-18 01:04:16.245 W CHECKPOINT FAILED FOR HEIGHT 233000. EXPECTED HASH: <4f69bec2af6c0852412bdd10c19e6af10c8d738fe2618b5511a98efd03ab477e>, FETCHED HASH: <92eb8c2a1cdcb583365894f9a0be292a129fc2817abdae4bd61c95f0d3be4800 01:06:13 ``` 01:06:15 My node is trying to roll way back 01:06:53 Let me remove the checkpoints for testnet except for the new one 01:08:23 Actually/ i dont even know where thisb 233000 comes from 01:10:54 I see neither that height nor that hash in the code. Maybe the DNS record is being incorrectly parsed. 01:13:10 Wait, it's in a few GitHub issues: https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/3845 01:13:53 Yes, it's looking at the mainnet checkpoint sfrom DNS records: https://docs.getmonero.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/#moneropulse-is-dns-based 01:15:05 `cryptonote_core.cpp` probably needs more edits to get it to look at the testnet domains when it's running testnet. 01:22:08 ` // if anything fishy happened getting new checkpoints, bring down the house` lolol 01:24:21 Monero code archaeology is always fun. 01:26:51 I guess i can just, for now, replace mainnet url 01:29:07 ``` 01:29:07 if (!tools::dns_utils::load_txt_records_from_dns(records, nettype == TESTNET ? testnet_dns_urls : nettype == STAGENET ? stagenet_dns_urls : dns_urls)) 01:29:09 return true; // why true ? 01:29:11 ``` 01:29:13 this is probably broken 01:38:49 Idk if it needs more than 1 source, but i thinknso 01:39:25 vtnerd can you try to add the txt entry to yours again 01:42:35 Rightl. I get `status: SERVFAIL` when I try `dig -t txt checkpoints.vtnerd.com +dnssec` 01:44:47 To what? 01:45:15 to the same, its not showing any entries :P 01:46:56 Oh dnnsec maybe, damnit 01:52:31 Yeah it's name cheap, didn't fetch for higher tier. Let me switch to checkpoints.leeclagett.com at easydns 01:55:20 All set try now 02:27:59 Hm. It doesnt try to rollback 02:29:30 ``` 02:29:31 2025-08-18 02:25:29.971 I Using public DNS server(s): 9.9.9.9 (TCP) 02:29:33 2025-08-18 02:25:29.975 I adding trust anchor: . IN DS 20326 8 2 E06D44B80B8F1D39A95C0B0D7C65D08458E880409BBC683457104237C7F8EC8D 02:29:35 2025-08-18 02:25:29.975 I adding trust anchor: . IN DS 38696 8 2 683D2D0ACB8C9B712A1948B27F741219298D0A450D612C483AF444A4C0FB2B16 02:29:37 2025-08-18 02:25:29.975 D Performing DNSSEC TXT record query for checkpoints.xmrdb.com 02:29:39 2025-08-18 02:25:29.976 D Performing DNSSEC TXT record query for checkpoints.leeclagett.com 02:29:41 2025-08-18 02:25:30.001 I Found TXT record for checkpoints.xmrdb.com 02:29:43 2025-08-18 02:25:30.001 I Found TXT record for checkpoints.leeclagett.com 02:29:45 2025-08-18 02:25:30.001 D Found 2/2 matching records from 2 valid records 02:29:47 2025-08-18 02:25:30.001 D DB map size: 29842946048 02:29:49 2025-08-18 02:25:30.002 D Space used: 8370765824 02:29:51 Hi ofrnxmr how is the dns checkpoint test going? 02:33:27 Isn't that the goal? 02:34:01 Yeah, i reorged the checkpointed block. Goal is for the checkpoint to rollback the chain 02:36:06 Its not rolling back riggt now though. It should say something like this ^ 02:38:26 Don't listen to BawdyAnarchist, who is another midwit flooding the discussion with noise. I remember him frequently posting in r/xmrtrader with his nonsensical ramblings and complete misunderstanding of economics. 02:40:49 1 sec, let me try again 02:43:42 @vtnerd, it worked 02:44:11 Rolled back to block *704 03:29:42 Using public DNS server(s): 9.9.9.9 (TCP) 03:29:43 Do we have to rely on centralized DNS servers like Quad9 or Cloudflare for checkpointing? 03:43:36 those servers query monero domains directly 03:43:59 you can setup your own recursive resolver to fetch these directly from monero pulse DNS servers, whatever they are 03:44:34 👍️ 04:08:17 qubic includes at maximum 19 transactions in their blocks, be it selfish or not 04:34:24

how many of these checkpoints can we have before it starts slowing down the dns infrastructure 04:57:25 you should be able to remove redundant temporary ones, once you have moved further up the chain to the next checkpoints 05:14:37 Qubic is going after dogecoin next. https://x.com/c___f___b/status/1957139742388298154 05:18:01 Thoughts? 06:07:46 it will take time for them to develop doge mining, meanwhile they'll mine monero 06:08:58 Yes, but it seems like they’re moving on and they squeezed as much as they could from monero and are going to dogecoin to pump their coin up again. 06:09:44 zcash rigged it so it becomes Doge 06:10:21 Yep that poll was never actually a choice and CFB was hinting at mining dogecoin for weeks now, but what did you actually expect? 06:14:41 Shitcoins like Qubic require hype to stay alive just like nfts. The minute people feel like the coin is losing value or is stagnating. it usually begins a big sell off. 06:20:25 "develop dodge mining" -> buy older inefficent asic miners for cheap 06:21:00 this is also possible for bitcorn btw 06:30:11 It would take more asics than on the current market to have any chance of a 51% attack on Bitcoin. So no it’s not really possible against bitcoin 06:36:12 Do we know that? How much did bitmain actually make & sell? also that is not the case if bitcoin dips a bit and hashrate falls. plus trailing edge foundry prices will keep falling. it just becomes easier and easier to pull this off as we keep moving along. Only counteraction is bitcoin price going up for ever. but that is not a law 06:37:17 and again: we dont know how miners act in this type of siutation: if a large enough number decides to sell their miners the network is shut down until a whale / the community outbids the attacker 06:38:01 and again: we dont know how miners act in this type of situation: if a large enough number decides to sell their miners the network is shut down until a whale / the community outbids the attacker 06:43:01 Bitcoin has a market cap bigger than Google and Apple. It’s just infeasible for somebody like CFB to go after bitcoin. 06:45:06 its just 10 billion to attack. if you start sizing into miners and people recognize they might jack up the prices or people panic sell them and the price drops 06:46:13 etherum is more expensive to attack than bitcoin. there is literature on that look it up 06:47:56 Yeah bitcoin and ethereum are pretty much the 2 safest crypto against 51% just because of how big they actually are. You really think if Qubic said they’re going to attack Bitcoin anybody other than delusional qubic people would take it seriously? 06:51:28 both things can be true: 1. qubic people are delulu and they cant do shit. 2. bitcoin is not as expensive to turn off as people think it is. 06:53:25 It would take a serious actor like a well developed country like the US to realistically have a chance to do a 51% against those two. 06:56:23 in the case of etherum no. there is no chance. Because they can slash the attacker stake until the attacker has to give up. In the case of bitcoin if the protocol is not changed the US could command the fabs they have access to produce asics. So in this case the US could win. 06:58:39 Question is the US straight up doesn’t have any real incentive to actually take down bitcoin in the first place. Bitcoin is easier to track than fiat currency. 06:59:51 A more interesting example would be: China wants to teach the US a lesson after it decides on building a BTC reserve. Can they with their limited access to trailing edge fabs, out bid the US? again it is not about stealing funds it is about denial of service. Whoever has more access to ASICs + energy can shut down the network. 07:52:07 spirobel please be diagnosed, spending 30 minutes talking to yourself is not sane. 09:24:28 2025-08-18 04:56:20.158 W There were 24 blocks in the last 20 minutes, there might be large hash rate changes, or we might be partitioned, cut off from the Monero network or under attack, or your computer's time is off. Or it could be just sheer bad luck. 09:24:33 what does this mean? 09:25:15 printed from my monerod node 09:29:24 It literally spells it out for you 09:30:30 It doesn’t seem to be a large attack, because only 1 block has been orphaned so far in the past 24 hours 09:33:58 it's no attack. "there might be large hash rate changes" "Or it could be just sheer bad luck." 09:34:04 that spells it out