That idle thing is pretty annoying

I always end up having Monero (OLD) pop up again as unread and clicking on "continue this conversation" adds me back to this room

<᷾s> can vouch for smspool

<᷾s> I have a ref link too but \:P

Oh the discord replies to messages don't show up here

*still don't \:P

Does anyone in here know where I can purchase Wownero?

tired_turtle[m]: Tradeogre

nikg83[m]: Thanks mate!

Oops wrong account 🤣

s/🤣/🤣🤦🏽‍♂️/

nikg83: Thanks mate!

plowsof11: no problem!

Your welcome 👍

* You're welcome 👍

<᷾s> Why do we need to prove that sum of inputs - sum of outputs equals 0?

So that no coins are created or destroyed out of nowhere

<᷾s> Why is coin destruction bad though?

<᷾s> If someone wants to burn their cash in a fire pit they can do that

Yes, they can do that by sending to a non-existing address

<᷾s> But that doesn't mean the coins are out of supply though

if you want to burn coins you are free to send to this address: 892HHTyDg5mJm5eWJWZ8L1ZMYnnWExciQFFkpsgLh1DfVUXfUFj6z1X2jDD2ZRQLiwWYskeyNkrtpAHse4M3G29uBfiYgVL

:D

Monero's block rewards are tied to the supply, for example

xfedex: how original

anyway Pedersen commitments work like this in XMR, why on earth would anybody want to find a way to modify them just to allow "coin burning"?

But in general, you don't want individuals fucking with the supply

we are not BNB or similar scams which burn coins that are not in markets and pretend that it'll "increase price"

Because some people believe that burning coins will pump the value of existing ones

only thing it does is decreasing marketcap

Spoiler: if the supply keeps deflating like that, then nobody wants to spend because they want to he the "last man standing" with the highest price. But if nobody wants to spend, then nobody actually needs those coins, so they become worthless

So randomly burning coins only helps destroy the flow of money, and thus the market

<᷾s> Wouldn't tail emission invalidate that argument though?

<᷾s> That last man standing thing is a really big problem with BTC though and all the BTC maxis parrot stuff like "we can implement some kind of emission we have time"

<᷾s> They'll probably never do that though, because they just get richer as it deflates more

Coin burning is probably not economically rational for Monero users. It is easy to burn coins: create a wallet, send to it, and then delete the wallet keys. Proving the burn would be trickier.

unlock time to max block size (that's a lot of years IIRC)

bridgerton[m]: Spoiler: if they don't implement a tail emission, btc mining will be dead in ~20-30 years at most

some of us will be dead in 20-30 years

Possibly all of us.

BTC could survive without tail emission.

Just don't mine anything if average fee per vB is under 100$

moneromooo: And then create a spend proof to prove the _amount_ you "burned"?

(Along with a significant blocksize increase)

> <@gfdshygti53:monero.social> BTC could survive without tail emission.

> Just don't mine anything if average fee per vB is under 100$

That assumes that someone will be willing to pay that much

Sure. Or you can create an address with a view key which you disclose, and a public spend key of I.

yep, indeed.

Maxi will have to :D Or switch to a better tech

Then anyone can view burnt stuff in realtime :D

Also, it implies that the $/sat price will go up to insane levels. We're talking several orders of magnitude above the world gdp

(Or rather: the market cap will be that big)

Also kills whales when you burn coins ;)

the claim that btc won't work without a block reward is baseless

It will work....just 51% attacked constantly

another baseless claim

also, there's nothing special about 51% hash rate

Except it's in the bitcoin white paper

it doesn't say 51%

50% honest hash rate is the foundation of bitcoin's security.

no it isnt

the paper says 'majority' IIRC

but I can of course check =)

"The

"The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes "

anyway miners attacking these kinds of systems make little sense regardless of how much hash rate they haev.

makes*

I don't know what to say. That's just a restatement of a 51% attack

hello o/

i hope this is the right channel to ask - why does the monero gui forbid using simple mode on Tails?

i'd assume many people have tails on a stick too small to fit the blockchain

<GenericMage> I can't remember exactly but I think he 51% was something he said on Bitcointalk.

Also 0.1.0 was very easy to attack so long as you had 1 confirmation. That was later fixed, can't remember if it was Finney or Andreesan that fixed that.

s/he//

<as2333> "the paper says 'majority' IIRC" <- i.e. a simple majority, aka 50%+1

<as2333> "anyway miners attacking these..." <- So you don't believe that users have an inherent selfish incentive to doublespend (ie free money)?

If so, then why do pow mining at all?

merope yes, but users are not miners.

Users can mine. And when the hashrate will collapse to <1-10% of today's value, it will become very easy and cheap to do an attack using a fraction of all the discarded/sold off hardware

so the attack requires miners to make transactions and then revert their own transactions. And if that happens frequently, the system is fucked.

(Not a baseless number - actual math was done)

Exactly

...meaning, miners don't have too much incentive to fuck their own system.

But enemies of bitcoin do. Or anyone who has a financial short position.

You missed the part about all the discarded hardware, which they will be forced to sell since it won't be profitable to mine with it anymore

yes enemies of bitcoin do - and they are the government - and they have far easier ways to attack bitcoin than a '51% attack'

merope it's not that I missed. I'm not taking for granted the claim that hash rate will drop to 1-10%

missed *it

In this specific scenario, it's just a waiting game. The system is already fucked, they just have to wait 20-30 years until the base block reward drops low enough

Then, either the users will start paying massive fees (50+ $/tx), or the mining incentive will be too low and miners will be forced to stop (assuming an electricity price of 0.10 $/kWh)

Regardless of btc price

if one can buy mining hardware for pennies then mining becomes profitable

No

Profitability is cost of energy vs mining efficiency

I admit I haven't looked at the historical fees/block reward ratio.

Hardware price comes in later, when you calculate roi times

But you can't have any roi if you spend more per kWh than you earn back from the mining

<GenericMage> Electricity costs are the main consideration, plus halving shrinks rewards over time. If price doesn't double every 4 years, a generation of mining hardware becomes unprofitable.

my general comment is that fees would adjust to whatever 'the market' is willing to pay. If that means less hash rate, so be it. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

It's a problem because at some point "less hashrate" becomes "less than 5% of the hashrate today"

And that point is higher than you'd expect

Even 1$/tx is quite bad

Less hashrate in btc = more unused "dark" hashrate that can be bought up and used to 51% attack

Though it will probably just shift to BCH

But even that has its limits

i think the risk of the 51% attack is exaggerated. just look at bsv

That's because nobody really cares about bsv

The point of 51% is to doublespend

There's nothing to doublespend if you have nothing to spend in the first place

if hashrate goes down the market cap will also

ok, as far as I can tell, during 2022 btc fees were $100k per day - block reward at 6 bitcoins is something like $150k

so fees are 40% of miners earnings

wait, wait

6 btc per block...

Just look at the $/second

Right now btc is paying 230 $/s to its miners

Highest historical value was ~1000 $/s

Right now the base reward pays for most of it

hm so block reward is 19 millions per day?

effective block reward is also proportional to the btcusd price

150k$ * 144 blocks/day, checks out

great_taste: Yes, but so are user fees

Right now, base reward pays for >95% of all that money though

But when the base reward drops, eventually user fees will be paying for most of the reward

fair enough

Even in the most extreme scenario where users pay 1 sat/tx (note per tx, not per byte!), around epoch 20-21 users will be paying for >50% of the reward

so I'd expect fees both fees to go up and hash rate to go down, absent block reward.

And that's assuming that the price skyrockets to insane values, such that the total fiat value of the reward still maintains the $/s incentive of today

and then PoW wars? :)

Sorry, epoch 20-21 was 1 sat/byte. 1 sat/tx crossover is a little later

Fees won't go up necessarily. Rather, users would have to willingly choose to pay more to keep the miners going. And if they won't, then the miners will drop off

yeah

<GenericMage> BSV is extremely centralized, how they ward off 51% attacks is by having known miners whose chain of transactions are considered authoritative.

so a fair amount of hardware may end up being useless. Whether it's used for '51% attacks', who knows.

Right now we're in the order of 1-10 million asics mining btc. If users will pay 1$/tx, the network will drop to 50k-200k asics

as2333: my thinking is almost identical with one exception: pricing energy in other than fiat (preferably in btc) would change all dynamics

That's a big drop in miners

u221f: No, it just changes the price units. Same dynamics applies

merope: hmmm... in a post-fiat world?

u221f I haven't thought of energy prices yet - that requires more thinking on my part =P

Money is money, works the same way. You pay for energy, and you need to earn more than what you spent in order to be profitable

Here's an idea. This is the situation right now for a broad sample of btc hardware

The second to last column ($/kWh) is how much it earns right now, given its efficiency

In other words, you'd nees to pay less than that for your electricity in order to be profitable

The mining incentive determines the maximum hashrate that you can pay for, at a given efficiency

(And a given electricity price)

I typically assume a reference value of 0.10 $/kWh, to make math simpler

merope do you think the majority of btc miners will end up losing money?

When we get to that point, yes

so far, block reward has been going down, and hash rate has increased

If user transactions have to pay for miners, and there's a maximum limit to how many transactions you can fit in a block, it follows that the incentive has to be shared among a limited number of transactions

Because the overall incentive has stayed high

Easy example: when block reward goes to 0, to maintain 200 $/s at 7 tx/s, you have to pay 28.57 $/tx to keep the incentive up

Working backwards, you can calculate how much % of the block reward is paid by the users (in sat/byte or sat/tx) in each epoch

yes - ok, so block reward has remained high in dollars because of btc price increase.

Additionally, you can ask: "How high would btc price have to be, in order to pay X $/tx at a given sat/byte fee level? And how high would the market cap be, at that price?"

what do you get? =)

And you will find that lower fee levels (1 sat/byte, 1 sat/tx) push the crossover point further away in time, but would eventually require the mcap to be 10^6-10^9 times higher than global gdp

still, even if btc goes up a lot more, transaction fees would be objectively expensive.

Whereas higher fee/byte levels make the mcap situation more reasonable, but push the crossover point much sooner

Tx fees would stay "the same" regardless of sat/byte fee level

You'd still have to pay 30 $/tx, whether it's 1 sat/tx @ 1 bajillion dollars/btc, or 10 sat/byte @ 100k dollars/btc

(Don't recall the exact numbers)

yes, so given the current hash rate, transactions would cost $30

*current mining incentive

[$/s]

Nethash follows that value

But yes

well, my guess then is that hash rate will probably go down - whether the unused hardware would be then used to try to do doublespends, I don't know.

Even worse: this entire calculation assumes that blocks are always full with standard transactions (in order to actually have 7 tps). If there are fewer bigger transactions, or there aren't enough txes to keep blocks full, then users would have to pay even more per tx

Dynamic blocksize and tail emission solve this issue

merope do you think a question like "how much hash rate is needed for 'security'" can be answered?

Sort of. It's not about absolute hashrate, but relative hashrate

If the hashrate is spread among a "large enough" number of miners, and a new miner would have to spend a "large enough" amount of money to obtain a "significant" percentage of nethash, then the system can be considered secure

I have not yet worked out in detail how big those numbers would be, exactly

But for reference, btc is currently mined by ~1-10M asics. Eth, towards the end, was mined by ~5-20M gpus. Monero is ~100k-1M cpus

And to acquire 50% of nethash, it would take several billions of $ (assuming the cost of new hardware)

Sorry, not 50% - if you're bringing fresh hardware, you need to at least match the nethash, so 100%

Which would mean that an attacker would need to pull off a massive doublespend in order to profit from the attack

I still don't think that doublespends of that kind make sense.

Also: unless you can source extremely cheap hardware, the main cost of the attack is the hardware itself - the energy and other costs are negligible in comparison, even for a prolonged attack

(I actually want to estimate the optimal attack scenario in a future paper)

as2333: Of course, a doublespend of that magnitude is not realistic - which is why we can safely say that it's not going to happen, and that any smaller attack is not worth doing. But when nethash drops low enough, smaller attacks become much more feasible

Especially if cheap hardware is just laying around, collecting dust in a warehouse full of doorstops and paperweights, and the owners hope to recover some of its cost by selling it off

sooo, the btc party line may be that yes, onchain transactions will be rather expensive, but most traffic will go through the lightning network.

Nope

Because lightning is a L2. Can't have a functional L2, if L1 breaks down

And even if enough people keep paying for L1 to work, L2 would still be expensive af unless you do thousands of txes between channel open and channel settlement

well, I'm not saying that's what will happen =P - but it's a standard reply I think

Sure, but then you instantly know that whoever said it is fucking clueless :D

well L1 wouldn't break down because txs would be a lot more expensive

"Would" is incorrect, because it implies causality

You can't force users to pay more

But if they don't, then the system breaks

yeah - I'm assuming they will pay more because it makes sense

say, open/close a channel per year at $60

Does it, though? Pay tens of dollars to feed a bunch of miners and pray that your financial system doesn't break down, vs moving to a system that has fixed this issue at its core

Then you need to do 1000 txes/year in order to pay 0.06 $/tx average

Gotta go - will reply later if you have more thoughts/questions

ok, thanks for the chat =)

Oh btw - found the link I wanted to send earlier: moneroj.net/securitybudget

<᷾s> Currently mining on an Antminer S19 Pro (no 1 in buzzfeed-like best ASIC lists) costs $90000 "per block"

<᷾s> "Decentralised finance" with $50 fees to transfer money lol

<᷾s> Some maxis unironically advocate for "custodial solutions" in the future

Use Bitcoin, end up in custody ?

<᷾s> But hey, atleast they let you keep your Bitcoin t-shirts \:P

how is monero any better in that regard?

In what regard?

seems I found the btc channel

lol