you can help us all, buy up all monero on exchanges at market order no limits, and keep doing it

now the ticker price for the 0.1% moved sets the "price" for the other 99.9% of monero :D

imaginary number go up

but price discussion is fit for elsewhere

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Almost - you need limit orders too

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Need to create walls below the market price

<p-q:matrix.org> HODL the „real PoS“

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Not strictly price related, but seriously speaking: calls to raise emission or fees, doesnt matter if price goes down

no. just keep doing infinite market buys each tick

fees++, emission was a very touchy one and still is, regardless of bad past

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Other coins have, as an example, raised dev fees from 3%-50%, and the price of the coin kept tanking. You cax tax or fee at 100%, it means nothing if the price od the coin is falling faster than you raise taxes

fees = tx fees

not dev fees :D

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Its the same thing in the grand scheme - its a tax on users to fund something

monero is so "easy" to mine that any discrepancy in price to make it profitable by renting servers on spot makes the profit part disappear quick

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> if we 2x fees and monero is $130, what did we change? Nothing

someone suggested making fees tied to hashrate :D

but that ends up with a spiral down

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> the price of monero is tied to hashrate

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> So value of the fees are already tied to hashrate

<captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> what if HR accepted by the network per miner was capped?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> "normal" fee tier went from 1c to 3c, and block reward went from $75 to $155. If we were to change emission but NOT increase adoption, the only thing that happens is more coins are sold

02:11:03 <br-m> <captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> what if HR accepted by the network per miner was capped?

<p-q:matrix.org> btw. is RandomXV2 finsihed?

<p-q:matrix.org> I think FCMP++ already runing „in test mode“ right?

what is a miner

someone can just make 1000 wallet outputs

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> @p-q:matrix.org: as we speak

you also can't distinguish them on chain without their keys

also. 51% can be done by someone in secret

then pushed all at once

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> @jwinterm:matrix.org lets add fcmp to that wownero hard fork. Who needs audits?

<p-q:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: V2 also?

no redesign, but the end step already exists

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> No, v2 isnt being tested

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Its been tested, but is not live on fcmp

that's the only change to randomx, but no more changes to how it arranges random code for modern architectures

the relevant monero-project tracking issue is monero-project/monero #8827

<captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> I see, and then we're back to signing blocks again > <DataHoarder> you also can't distinguish them on chain without their keys

and they can make single keys per block :)

<p-q:matrix.org> So i see it positive, FCMP+ is running, V2 is on the agenda, dns checkpoints are on the roadmap and being tested, just wownero lags a bit behind with mergemining

<captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> so everyone who wants to support monero should buy asics for other algos and swap on CEXs for monero

<captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> (then not trade it back to cexs)

<captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> qubic in reverse

:)

<countbleck:matrix.org> new IRC bridge?

<dgently:catgirl.cloud> Yes new bridge

<dgently:catgirl.cloud> It's not in all channels yet

not all channels indeed

feel free to gather feedback and send it to me (on both sides!)

on irc it supports puppets for matrix users that opt-in, but I have that currently disabled for this first run

ofrnxmr: >> Midi: any POW coin is susceptible to the qubic strategy, as long as qubic can pay more than the previous sum << sure, but some coins security budget is way too large for a qubic type attack. it's not like we would merge mine with a minor coin, that would be irrational. in theory, the choice would only be between a select few.

nioc: >> it seems that they chose transparency and compliance, nobody is perfect << yeah, ok - maybe that is fair fair. though, some of the mitigation proposals have been deployed in other coins previously, whilst we believed that PoW would "always" be secure - which seems to not be the case.

i don't think its a case of "transparency and compliance vs security". it might be a case of "decentralisation vs security" though (which is really not a great tradeoff). that is why i think the merge mining idea has merit, as it doesn't necessarily compromise on decentralisation. it just piggy backs on another coins network distribution (with all the tradeoffs that brings).

<gingeropolous> midipoet: , from what I understand, selfish mining is the malevolent behavior 'from "crowd sourced" CPUs to attack specific coins'. Well, I guess a bad actor could still mine empty blocks

<gingeropolous> if you are forced to publish your blocks, then you can't do the whole thing they are doing

<gingeropolous> merge mining requires the support of whatever network we hope to merge mine with, doesn't it?

No

As long as their blocks have space for arbitrary data, merged mining is possible

With the same algorithm of course

merge-mining with tari so you can merge mine while you merge mine

:D

on a more serious note, i've been looking at the "Publish or Perish" mitigation, and i find it interesting but i am wondering about a few things:

- how will it affect statistical analysis for ring signatures?

- how will it affect wallets that don't rely on a "full" node and their privacy?

s/ring signatures/RingCTs

<p-q:matrix.org> Theoretically MergeMining should also be possible on more then 1 coin at the same time, if the algo is the same.

<p-q:matrix.org> Correct me please if i’m wrong.

<p-q:matrix.org> Because as far as i understand you just broadcast the data between the chains.sech1

<captaincanaryllc:matrix.org> @Mus this is what f2pool does with several sha256 coins and more scrypt coins

15:58:14 <br-m> <p-q:matrix.org> Theoretically MergeMining should also be possible on more then 1 coin at the same time, if the algo is the same.

there is a merkle root + merkle root proof per chain, correct

Yes, it's possible to merge mine several coins if they all use the same merge mining format

you build a merkle tree that includes each of the merge mined chains

<p-q:matrix.org> Thanks pros so i think i understand it right. Both ways / no limit to „how much coins at the same time“ + works in both ways as long as it is supported.

<p-q:matrix.org> So i think this is a good point for the future on PoW.

qubic has started mining selfishly

+6 depth within a few seconds

(2.4m)

now +7

<shortwavesurfer2009> 6 reorg detected

<shortwavesurfer2009> 5*

seems qubic has started introducing like one non-qubic tx on their blocks

but still like 7/8 are qubic own transactions, it's funny

most blocks are still made up of only qubic identifiable transactions

sort of random, I guess they can't fine tune this

I added recent monero pool stratum tips of some pools on qubic-snooper.p2pool.observer/tips.txt

i was wondering why `xh` didn't work for that url and now i notice you're the go-away dev :p

the xh user agent is not part of the default filter lists i presume

I don't have go-away on that

it's probably buttflare

huh... i guess they changed something again ^^;;

helene: that link seems to work with curl here and even via tor

btw, it'll refresh automatically if on a browser, even without javascript

curl works, but xh doesn't (maybe it triggers something on Cloudflare, no clue); but i'll just be using my web browser instead :) thanks for the data!

if curious, use this from command line $ watch -n 30 curl --silent qubic-snooper.p2pool.observer/tips.txt

<unt0ld:matrix.org> I don't buy this Litecoin miners are just going to attack us if we merge mine LTC+DOGE+XMR argument. The Scrypt miners are just going to say thank you for long term extra money, and merge mine all. They have no financial reason to attack. As I understand, Qubic will have to bribe not just against Monero but against XMR+LTC+DOG [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/usOTg7EKQVRBcDhu ]

<unt0ld:matrix.org> I don't see why having more long-term merge mined coins would not be in the financial interest of Scrypt miners. They're not going to risk bag holding their their ASIC for some extra short term gain. And in fact the whole uPoW narrative of Qubic would fall apart because what useful "AI" PoW are you doing on a Scrypt ASIC except mine LTC+DOGE+XMR?

<testtank:matrix.org> If monero has to merge mine with a memecoin to survive, then it should die

<jwinterm:matrix.org> @testtank:matrix.org: everycoin is a memecoin

<testtank:matrix.org> Not monero

<jwinterm:matrix.org> which part of everycoin did you not understand? meme just means some distilled idea that is easily communicable

<jwinterm:matrix.org> secure. private. untraceable

<jwinterm:matrix.org> ^this is a meme

<jwinterm:matrix.org> egalitarian mining...believe it or not...also a meme3

<testtank:matrix.org> Sure man

<unt0ld:matrix.org> I'm also warm to the local PoW idea, more than merge mining, if it really works. How high is the confidence that local PoW really works and can't be circumvented?

<jwinterm:matrix.org> @testtank:matrix.org: mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/rxjGgYqRmaAOeSIUEfcJndcV.png (image.png)

<jwinterm:matrix.org> from the horse's mouth

<jwinterm:matrix.org> 21 million hardcap for btc, yup, also a meme

<unt0ld:matrix.org> Anonymous sound internet money!

<jwinterm:matrix.org> @unt0ld:matrix.org: I think if you use a bitaxe as your requirement it's pretty weak, there's tons of old antminer S9s and stuff floating around which presumably could do local PoW for a few racks of CPUs

<jwinterm:matrix.org> @unt0ld:matrix.org: nice meme brudda

<unt0ld:matrix.org> Also call every other coin snitchcoin. Offensive use of memes.

<plowsof:matrix.org> #monero-research-memes

<ofrnxmr> A) wownero merge mines with doge

<ofrnxmr> B) wownero merge mines with xmr

<ofrnxmr> I'm not buying the "wont attack" as if most 51% attacks werent the direct result of being a minority chain. Dogecoin has higher hashpower and market cap than LTC because of elon musk, not because merge mining provided magicical inherit security

<ofrnxmr> Example: why doesnt tari have 4gh of merge mined randomx? What are monero pools doing with the tari? Dumping it.

<unt0ld:matrix.org> So what if they're dumping it?

<ofrnxmr> Tari = monero in this situation.

<unt0ld:matrix.org> Most of CPU isn't deing dumped? You belive that?

<ofrnxmr> i believe non-botnet monero miners arent auto-dumping, correct

<ofrnxmr> I believe all asic farms are auto-dumping

<privacyx> It appears the laregest monero pools like supportxmr and nanoppool have teamed up to fight against Qubit selfish mining by selfish mining

<ofrnxmr> @privacyx: where do you see that evidence?

i see evidence to the contrary of that with both DataHoarder’s work and chain observers

also as for monero not being mined to be instantly sold

it’s reasonable to imagine, it’s banned from most CEX

the main goal of randomx as i understood it at the time was to allow anyone to acquire monero anonymously even if exchanges had banned it, so that the coin could fulfill its purpose

but if i misunderstood that feel free to correct me :)

<privacyx> In the mining pool stats@ofrnxmr:monero.social

<privacyx> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/monero.social/eAjiBCRzEdrDHJMMjAVYfMlT.jpeg (1756760351472.jpeg)

<ofrnxmr> Thats showing qubic (blue) is successful in orphaning the red pools

<privacyx> Its usually the other way around yeah?

<monerobull:matrix.org> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/deMPZddEppkotvEQlmyXaFpr.png (image.png)

<monerobull:matrix.org> @monerobull:matrix.org: this was obviously going to happen

<privacyx> Even cfb is complaining about it

<monerobull:matrix.org> its the most effective way to punish them

<ofrnxmr> ffs what is this, a bullshit fake news channel?

so we believe what he says now?

<monerobull:matrix.org> i mean, i think its true

<ofrnxmr> its not true

<monerobull:matrix.org> ive noticed a lot of their blocks getting reorged the last few days

<ofrnxmr> See the pic right above yours

mb have you seen DH's explanations about it?

<monerobull:matrix.org> nope

<privacyx> Ok my bad i got it wrong i thought the red is one doing orphaning

<ofrnxmr> nope. Red one is the one getting orphaned

gingeropolous: they could still mine empty blocks and/or censor transactions couldn't they?

<privacyx> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/monero.social/BkSGhggoIIIDjUrCzbAUHdct.jpeg (1756760678166.jpeg)

<privacyx> So this ones

<ofrnxmr> those are single blocks, and that happens everyday

very simplified explanation, they are trying to create a long alt chain which leaves them vulnerable to having them all orphaned at one time

<ofrnxmr> Qubics blocks propagate slowly due to withholding txs

<unt0ld:matrix.org> Good on the pools if they do it. They must follow their market incentives. And collude towards common goals. They're actors too. I hope they choose the growth of Monero.

<monerobull:matrix.org> so this is just coincidence?

<monerobull:matrix.org> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/hXUJdaVIQBxRWDwbXVRuHIFa.png (image.png)

may I suggest you read everything that certain people post and scroll past the rest if you don't have the time

<ofrnxmr> @ofrnxmr: mbll ^

any paraphrasing by me will be poor

<ofrnxmr> They might be ahead when they broadcast, but higher if "honest" pools find a block before qubic can complete the broadcast, then the honest chain becomes longer

<privacyx> Ahhh ok

<monerobull:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr: im not sure if im fully convinced by that but sure

<ofrnxmr> ..

<ofrnxmr> its not an opinion

<ofrnxmr> its how fluffy blocks work

<boog900> Not only this, because of the way they do selfish mining, their blocks are always synced they aren't proactively sent around the network > <@ofrnxmr> Qubics blocks propagate slowly due to withholding txs

<privacyx> Qubit is struggling with the hash rate as supportxmr hash has grown up to nearly 1.70GH

if q succeeds it's their doing and if they fail it's someone else's fault

:)

clearly if they can’t succeed it’s because other pools are doing selfish mining — don’t mind the fact that there’s multiple p2pool blocks on the winning chains

p2pool must be doing selfish mining…… somehow

<unt0ld:matrix.org> I have gained 51% control of P2Pool to selfish mine.

<unt0ld:matrix.org> -- unt0ld-from-beyond

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> @unt0ld:matrix.org: You overtook the dude with 70%?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> helene: P2pool has far more efficient propagation than qubic

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Because every p2pool miner broadcasts the blocks

<unt0ld:matrix.org> @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I come with "about as believable as CfB" guarantee!

i said it as a joke but i’m struggling to figure out how one could do selfish mining with p2pool… unless you do it against p2pool itself i guess?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> p2pool is a pow sidechain with 10 second blocks and uncles. Its probably the same or similar rulebook on selfish mining there as anywhere else

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> If it eas immune to selfish mining, we'd just apply those rules to monero

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> you can also selfish mine with p2pool by running a private p2pool. Theres nothing forcing anyone to use main/mini/nano

figured it worked like that too but i never looked very deep into p2pool

oh definitely, i was just wondering if there would be any interest to an attacker to do something like that

wasnt this guy on a rant about how he was attacking dogecoin now?

why does he still have a hard on for killing the only crypto that has a purpose

on twitter he keeps saying how he won't stop until monero is PoS

<jwinterm:matrix.org> because it's much harder to convince miners with dedicated hardware they have invested in to destroy the value of their ASIC investment?