Could anyone help me find the hashrate of a Tesla K80? I'd check myself, but I had to salvage parts from my K80 PC for my main server.

Just sell it and buy XMR, you are going to get more than try to mine with that.

RavFX: I've got included electricity, and also use it to run AI, so I'm just gonna mine on it while it's not being used.

Though, I have another question: If I mine another coin that's better on GPUs, then exchange it for XMR, wouldn't I then be able to trade XMR, with the anonymity benefits of XMR, but more profitably?

You are going to waste the electricity. Mining other shitcoin then trading them for XMR could be more profitable yes. You can use exchange like tradeogre to exchange youre shitcoin for XMR without KYC

Hi guys, have you heard about Zymfund on Instagram?, he help people make a lot of money through their Bitcoin software miner, I got almost 10k usd dealing with him. He’s 100% legit

scam

I concure

hi all is there a flooding/vulnerablility in v0.18.1.2-e6f9c0013? my whole instance was blackholed and provider says it was due to traffic on port 18080

Get a non-censuring provider

yea i'll be working on that

Monero need P2P over TLS on port 443

Monero can use quite a lot of bandwidth

it normally uses about between 1-2mb worth of traffic per my graphs, then spiked to 50mb.

I use a between 90 and 200GB a day... (excluding the poison days)

<ofrnxmr[m]> "what drawback? i see none" <- I agree with you and Rucknium regarding excluding coinbase outputs from the DSA

<dieth> "it normally uses about between 1..." <- ```... (full message at <libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/do…23fb92a88f8c771a9ecfad4504265f225ea>)

My local node are running hot. Had to code a monitor script to shut down and restart when cooled down 😢... (full message at <libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/do…cb8d06306e8c02934aae1d1da6eb8db82b7>)

How come you have no inbound?

It's not the primary node, so it's behind firewall. The primary is the one that just shut down.

BTW. It's Celsius 🔥🚒

<chaingame.eth> hello everyone

<chaingame.eth> i have a AMD EPYC 7502P which I would like to use for monero mining. I found in the internet that it would mine around 10$ XMR a month. That seems super low 😄 Can this be true?

* around 10$ in XMR a

<BusyBoredom[m]> "Anyone know why whonix removed..." <- maintainer of whonix had a ccs for maintaining the monero-gui for two years. the time has run out. he decided to cease maintaining..

<bridgerton[m]> "<chaingame.eth> i have a AMD..." <- isn't that a server cpu??

Monero v0.18.2.2 binaries are now available at getmonero.org

Not sure if bridges are working, apparently my first message doesn't always go through Matrix. Repeating: Monero v0.18.2.2 binaries are now available at getmonero.org, yay!

bridges working, thanks!

a newbie question but is the kovari routing implemented in monero network ?

you probably mean kovri

and how much i need to be worried about connecting to a remote node

kovri*

or do they call it garlic routing now

called i2p

dependss what you have to be worried about

the same worries you have when connecting to anything - metadata

ip address, time

block height of wallet sync

the biggest worry is the extra monero specific stuff

1. remote nodes can raise you fee to incredible amounts

2. remote nodes can maliciously choose to not broadcast your tx, causing you to rebroadcast it and expose the true spend

i generally use a VPN on my computer to be extra cautious

i can't download the whole blockchain on my computer

<ofrnxmr[m]> "2. remote nodes can maliciously..." <- that sounds scary

but what do i do then ?

use a trusted remote node

there are a few run by community members that are very reliable

like Seths, Cakes, Rinos, Stack wallets, Feather, Plowsof

kevino[m]: Can use mine mtrl77yg3mpuaqe5ggiy5kuqeigywvrl52kwlagsby5thqw7nehpwjqd.onion:18089

i avoid random nodes found laying in dark corners, but ill use most of the ones from community members withiut worry

I think (2) is mitigated by caching rings. If you construct a ring once to spend an output, you do not try to reconstruct it.

ok

so i manually chose one instead of letting it automatically connect to one

Rucknium[m]: if you switch nodes, it does (no?) i could be wronf

That can create its own problems if you construct a ring for an input and then wait a long time to spend it.

kevino[m]: always

Let me pull the logs....

ofrnxmr[m]: i say this becauae if they dont broadcasr,you have to switch nodes to recoup the funds

when respending you pull new decoys from the new node.

thats how i remember it atm

libera.monerologs.net/monero-dev/20220622#c111774 "If you construct a tx on a particular date and then don't submit the tx, then the ring(s) your wallet constructed will be saved on disk and reused if you spend the input in the future"

thats if you use contruct a tx for offline submission

i am in simple mode therefore it didn't allow me to change the node

ie if you have a copy of the contructed tx

kevino[m]: switch to advanced mode

simple mode = auto selecting remote node

ofrnxmr[m]: but it would require me to download the blockchain right ?

nope

ohh

local mode requires tou to download

advanced lets you choose local node vs remote node

how do i know which node can be trusted

that would be a local node

also this not well documented thing in monero-gui guide

^

Did y’all hear about the new nvidea cpu?

privacy -risks regarding a simple mode aren't listed

s/regarding/while/, s/a/using/, s/listed/documented./

simple mode wasnt always thought of as bad

but these days were actively looking into changing it to use only trusted community nodes ala feather

the high fee issue was unknown until it happened, then we looked into how to identify these bad nodes etc

ah it's your agenda again

i still have no idea wtf youre talking about

spit it out or stfu

how is an average user gonna know these risks

who pays me and who are my alts? majesticscam speakup

i thought i am safe using simple mode over a vpn

I'm one of the alts, did you forget? 💢

kevino[m]: thats our problem yes. need to hurry with the simple mode changes

how could i forget

im asking MAJESTIC who he thinks i am

dumbass needs to hurry up and embarass himself

who pays me?? speak

i give you permission to expose my as

kevino: Some risks are "documented" here: monerooutreach.org/breaking-monero/remote-nodes.html

the whole breaking monero series on youtube is a good place to learn about monero issues

there is a high fee warning kevino. if you see that just don't click OK

what password do i enter while manually entering node

and i think when the high fee happened we recouped the money?

vpn is for playing fortnite with low ping to avoid bans cus you're cheating. Use an actual anonymity network if you want privacy

mining pool that got it still had it iirc

plowsof11: i don't see it

only happens if youre trying to send funds through a node who sends back a ridiculous fee

i haven't faced high fees yet

GUI warns about high fee transfer, so it's safe

unless yo uare sending a mordinal, high fees are rare

how do i add a node manually :/

unable to connect to any

what should i put in password field

nothing

which wallet are you using?

don't add anything in username / password

monero-gui

which node are you trying to connect to?

seth and cake

i have set transaction priority to automtic

i didn't put anything in username and password

entering the host name didn't work so i put the actual IP and it works now

<ofrnxmr[m]> "but these days were actively..." <- I strongly recommend that simple mode is eradicated and forces people who want to use remote nodes to manually connect to one that they know of. So noobs must look online for a node before they can sync.

> <@karano:poddery.com> how do i add a node manually :/

> unable to connect to any

I will answer your question as a fellow n00b. It's very simple so just don't be ADD and follow these simple steps. Step 1 = Have Monero GUI downloaded on your device and up to date. Step 2 = Switch from simple mode to advanced node (I did this a while ago, so I forgot how to do it but it's relatively straightforward) Step 3 = Go to the bottom bar on the menu of the GUI wallet and it should say something like settings (I think) and

click on this bar. Step 4 = In the middle of the screen you will see a "nodes" section, click on it. Step 5 = at the bottom of the screen there should be an option to "add remote node" Step 6 = in the address section put node.sethforprivacy.com in the port section put 18089

ofrnxmr, do you happen to know the maximum amount that the blocksize could expand in 1 years time? I know it's a random question, but was just curious as you are very responsive and seem pretty omniscient regarding Monero

spackle_xmr: do you have your link?

see the gifs

I will inspect and see if my monkey brain can understand it

heya so this may sound dumb but uh basically i have patreon, kofi and such since i am uh a freelancer/indie game dev and if people wanna support me extra well thats what they can do :P

now uh what would you recomenned for monnero? like uh i am right now making a wallet mainly for recieving donations how would i do that?

monero is perfect

kuno.bitejo.com

retro, it's very easy just download cake wallet if you use iOS or monero gui if you have a laptop. upon downloading the wallet you will generate a seed phrase, store it securely on a piece of paper, along with yesterday's date (restore height). Then you will connect to a remote node (see xmr.fail nodes list) or run your own full node. wallah you can receive donations

if you need to host a fundraiser

and for a wallet, you can just use cake wallet. save your seed.

unless youre a desktop type of person. featherwallet or monerogui.

feather might be easier to use but updates a lot more often

ofrnxmr, in the gifs, how is the block size measure? what are the denominations 1 mb or 1 gb?

thats a spackle question :P

oof, my main point of inquiry was how much Monero's blocksize could expand if we had a "flood" whether honest or adversarial that persisted 1 year's time

I'd like to learn a bit more about the upper bounds on block expansion, that way I'm less fearful of chain growing big big too fast fast

okay so thats a lot of information dump at once so uh lemme just get featherwallet >w<

feather is a good wallet 👍

articmine would probably know a bit regarding the upperbounds of the dynamic block algo. the dynamic algo in the longterm is a point of uncertainty for me regarding if it is tight enough

Did you check this already? It's a bit dated, but probably good background reading: github.com/noncesense-research-lab/Blockchain_big_bang

I am sure that somewhere there must be Articmine's musings around that led to the adjustements with the last hardfork, but I can't find them right now

thanks rbrunner, i Have not i will check it out now

I just remember that *tons* of thought went into this, how to keep a good adjustment capability while putting a cap on long-term growth

So nobody can push it into the terabytes just with a bit of patience

Or, at least it takes so lang that they probably go broke before that :)

*so long

thanks rbrunner I'm glad to hear that people have thoroughly considered this issue. I'm enjoying the guy's summary of the situation so far

Welcome. There is really much hard work done, barely visible to the broad public. But it has its reasons we still stand solid :)

awesome, i'm glad smart people have been on this issue for a while now. because in the long run as long as the algorithm is tighter than ssd and bandwidth improvements, then Monero is set for smooth sailing

if the algorithm is insufficiently tight, then long run this could be problematic

dang upon reading this guy's analysis about what could've happened when there was only the 3 hour memory approx from median of mempool, I'd say it's a miracle that Monero wasn't seriously attacked and beyond reapair lol. of course I haven't got to the punchline yet about what changes have been made to ensure that such attacks, or benign adoption spikes, can't wreck nodes

mitchellpk doing god's work🙏

<rbrunner> "I just remember that *tons* of..." <- I finished reading it and it was a very good summary of different solutions. Could you send me a link to, or describe, the solution that was implemented to prevent the big big growth fast fast?

looks like Long Term Median added in 2019 is our current latest and greatest mitigation to longterm big big too fast fast for nodes, I will see if I can do some more reseach and force my monkey brain to understand long term median

fr33_yourself[m] The pricing for Big Bang in the github link is the additional cost if the attacker already has 51%. The actual cost without 51% is closer to 4x the block reward for an all out attack. This compares with a theoretical 0.5 the block reward for 51% for 51%. I would agree that 51% could be more that 0.5 the block reward because for example people could be heating their homes in winter by mining or using electricity that wold otherwise

have gone to waste for example excess solar energy during summer

Still I doubt that the green mining could bring up the cost of 51% 8x to match big bang.

ArticMine: thank you 👍️ My point of inquiry surrounds the Long Term Median and how many "times" the chain or block size can expand per year? I'm reading some comments of Justin, sgp, on github about it now and am backreading in other channels as well.

There was some discussion about this and a compromise was reached of 1.7x for eaxh long term median cycle

Right now, I'm agreeing with Justin's take that a tight 1.4x is nice, and that by going looser may lead to us having to tweak it downward in the futre

sounds good, looks like the math on that is that the max-number of tx's can go up 14x per year. seems a bit big in my opinion. the block size is the big what if (aside from quantum security) for Monero in my opinion. I had imagined a scenario where the developers become like the federal reserve, but instead of constantly twisiting the money supply and interest rate dial, the monero developers are constantly tweaking the long term

medium dial lol

Lowering to 1.4x is not the way to go here. A much better approach is to lower the surge in the short term median from 50x to 20x or even 16x while increasing the growth of the long term median per cycle from 1.7x to 2x

My general take is that Bitcoin volume is limiting but overall reasonable, so allow growing to there relatively cheaply, and then charge considerably more from there for growth. I don't want transactions to cost a fortune, but I'm not going to lose sleep if they cost a dollar

This keeps the growth of the short term median over a year below what it is now while more tightly pricing the increase

I am agnostic on the short term median. Only concerned with a future where Monero can be used by as large a pool of individuals as possible without full nodes dropping offline. But you guys are already way smarter than me. I'm just more-so trying to figure out the current limitations of benign or naughty tx's spikes and how we would respond if things start to get out of hand

sgp[m]: I agree with this take, but am even more extreme. I think there should be consistency between growth from now to Bitcoin and from that point moving forward. IE, aim on the side of tightness

ArticMine: I think I may vaguely understand the point you make here, and if what you say is true then it's probably fine. My opinion is not that relevant becomes I'm still new here but I tend to take the economic lense when analyzing Monero and if it can work long-term. Clearly it can work in the short-term, just that I wonder if Monero is with us 100 years from now? Every design decision made by Monero has been pretty damn good from

my understanding, so I differ to both your judgments that being said...

I am very strongly opposed to emulating Bitcoin here since it have been proven to be a failure for reasons that have nothing to do with adoption outpacing technology

s/becomes/because/, s/differ/defer/

I agree, but how would a tighter Long Term Median emulate Bitcoin? I'm not sure I follow?

I one want to peg the max growth of Monero to Neilsen's law the proper way to do this is to add a sanity median of 1,000,000 bytes with a cycle greowth of 2

In the this model the long term median is capped to the rate of the sanity median after a surge factor

The proper limiting factor is upstream bandwidth for the nodes

So three median rather than 2

In any case this is actually what I am working on

One can set the sanity median so that a node can handle say 5 Gbps (The highest in Canada is currently 8 Gbps)

ArticMine, let's say that we continue with the 1.7x that we presently have or even boost Long Term Median to 2x. (Time Elapses...) We begin to observe full nodes going offline as we watch the number of transactions to increase 10 to 14x per year. What would be your idea to respond to such a scenario?

5gbps is about $1000/mo bandwidth for industrial use right now

and then allow a 1.5x a year which is basically Neilsen's Law

It is high end residential

I have 2.5 Gbps at home

yeah but that's not high uptime/SLA

if anyone wants a reliable application, they need a better contract than a home ISP agreement

One does not need uptaime fpor a distributed network

from the network perspective sure, but not from a service perspective

if I run an exchange, obviously it needs good uptime for people to be willing to use it

Then you would have redundancy for your connection

cake pay web requires a monero node for example

That is a commercial operation

yeah but ~$1000 a month just for bandwidth to accept XMR is certainly non-ideal and would kill small businesses or force custodial

Furthermore that kind of adoption would cause a enven greater increase in the price of Monero

sgp[m]: This is my end-game concern. In the short-term Monero is very stronk. I just would like to be able to use it for the rest of my life as well.

I think basing anything on such throughput allowance is WAY to high right now, personally

It does not force custodial

What has allready forced custodian the the Bitcoin approach

it's a balancing act of the two

Look no furtherthan Chico and El Salvador

Chivo

it's both tx-cost issues and node cost issues, not just 1

I am proposing a high end residentian connection as the dynamic cap

I even somewhat agree to place a little more cost on nodes, for the benefit of cheaper txs. But it's a balance

residential

reasonably high end residential is 1gbps

... and also keep in mind the impact on price

above that, few people have

and you probably would get a call from your ISP running the entire 5gbps up 24/7, lol

No if you have unlimited

Plus 5 Gbps is the surce not average

it's no SLA unlimited, not unlimited with SLA

We are talking a 16x - 20x surge over a verage

That is what Visa has to do

there is no such thing as true unlimited, always a bunch of fineprints somewhere

anyway, I think this is way too high to set the standard now. Set at 100 mbps (we're not even close to that) and allow 10-20% growth a year

No

ArticMine: Artic, my understanding looking at Monero from an economic perspective is that until technical advances break through even more then Monero has two options: (1) Be usable for a participating minority to reasonable number of individuals through time with full nodes never falling behind the limitations of bandwitdth and storage space (2) Try to make Monero usable for every individual on planet earth (honorable goal, but too

much to chew presently IMO) and watch nodes *eventually* go offline

There is sim[le too mush negativity coming in from the Bitcoin network here

even 100 mbps would be a huge growth rate

Plus nodes do not have to relay or minier mine if they are stressed

One does not need to had bake limitis into the protocol

I understand what you're saying but I think it's too rash in that scaling direction

hard bak limits

The do it in node relay

Then do it in node relay

not consenssus

well then it's miners who have the real say in the moment then, no?

Both the nodes and the miners

which to some (large) extent they already have

<sgp[m]> "it's both tx-cost issues and..." <- This is the corrent lense in my opinion. What good is it to pay a small tx fee on a centralized network whose financial ledger's future is in jeopardy due to bandwidth and storage limitations?

This has been around for like 8 years

The trouble is that Bitcoin has to limit the blocksize inorder to casue tx fee to skyrocket to try to have fees repplace the falling blcok rewards

... and the Bitcoin community will not admit the real reason for keeping the blocksize low. It has nothing to do with technology

and everything to do with the falling block rewards as a failed design

<ArticMine> "One does not need to had bake..." <- I would potentially be in favor of baking in a tight limitation, but that would never fly with you lol haha. But I do agree that so long as their are big brains like core overseeing Monero's progress, then tweaks to the short term and long term median's can always be made. And if "big" or "controversial" tweaks are made then people can fork and mine on the tweaked algo they think is

best

and the need to replace the falling block rewards with tx fee revenu

> <@ArticMine:libera.chat> One does not need to had bake limitis into the protocol

* I would potentially be in favor of baking in a tight limitation, but that would never fly with you lol haha. But I do agree that so long as there are big brains like you, Core, and our current researchers + developers overseeing Monero's progress, then tweaks to the short term and long term median's can always be made. And if "big" or "controversial" tweaks are made then people can fork and mine on the tweaked algo they think is

best

There is a critical lesson here from Bitcoin, which is why I am opposed to a hard limitation baked into the protocol

The 1 MB blocksize was instituted in 2010

<sgp[m]> "well then it's miners who have..." <- This could work couldn't it? having Miner's decide when too much is too much? An interesting unseen incentive at play...

That is like 200MB today

more if one goes back to the Bitcoin genesis block in 2009

... and we are still arguing about this

<ArticMine> "... and the Bitcoin community..." <- "The pharisees hated Jesus, because he spoke the Truth." 🙂

Yes that is a great example

This was taken in 1959 when I was 3 years old en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#…edia/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg

It is the same year the BankAmericard the precursor to VISA was launched

So I am a Baby Boomer fighting for the rights of a 2 year old Gen Alpha

correction 2 years old

Try storing 6500 tps of average VISA transactions on punched cards

I am not here to argue necessarily, but state that IMO these are the three "spookiest" elements of Monero as a long-term superior monetary system: (1) the Long-Term Median (2) Quantum Security (a bit of a bugbear) (3) the transaction amount size commitment implementation being a sound and solid as the rock of gibraltar (bugbear of the UTXO believers, in my opinion)

All three of the above are not giant boogeymen lurking 10 years out from now waiting to kill us, but are uncertainties in terms of how things will play out for Monero as years and decades pass

There are sensible way to manage transaction growth. Simplistic solutions from a falied network baked into consensus are not the way

This is what I am strongly opposed

Consensus limits need to er on the side of generosity

If a tighter limit is desired than node relay can be used

<ArticMine> "So I am a Baby Boomer fighting..." <- You are indeed attempting to support a Long Term Median that would include more transactions per block as time elapses. However, the develop of a fee market under a tighter Long Term Median would be good for nodes and miners and bad in that it limits the number of people able to use Monero per day. However, we do not live in a world of infinite abundance and must remain cognizant of

real finite circumstances in our current technology

So you would have capped VISA at the technology of 1959?

The very same argument could have been made back then

ArticMine: Could you elaborate on this point and explain the incentives at play for the miner which would lead him to impose a tighter limit than conensus? Wouldn't a possible problem with this be that competing pools would then attempt to break this gentleman's agreement for the short term gain of getting more tx's and therefore more fees per block?

They are in the article I posted a ling to

it comes down to orphan blocks

also keep in mind the nodes can cap the growth vis node relay

link to

ArticMine: Maybe I would have, but I also would've seen other card companies start to outcompete me and I would've loosened the cap. Bitcoin is not doing this. They are going to get slaughtered and slammed on the floor like in Judo but it will already be too late.

When one designs a distributed consensus protocol one does not bake the current technology into it

ArticMine: So you're saying that full node operators, who aren't themselves miners, can limit the growth *independently* of the wishes/desires of miners?

Of course they ca

can

ArticMine: By what mechanism? How could they do this in practice?

They can increase the cost or refuse to allow a growth by limiting the number to tx they relay

They simple do not relay a tx that does not meet the criteria

Bitcoin Cash has no consensus limit on block size. Block size is set by miners. The most popular node implementation for mining sets the default max block size at 8MB (per 10 minute average). Most miners run with the default config and therefore the effective block size limit is now 8MB.

This is how the min fee is currently enforced in Monero

BCH occasionally hits the limit. When that happens, transactions are left in the mempool.

ArticMine: So they could even do this right now if they so chose? For example, node operators that don't mine could attempt to enforce a 1MB block cap on Monero tomorrow if they so chose?

They could

The thing about node relay is that it is enforcable ony if it makes sense

only

Unlike consensus

So with node relay one needs a rule tat work for most of the nodes

So if it is indeed true that node operators can limit the blocksize if they deem it necessary, then the problem of the Long Term Median being "too loose" to people like me is irrelevant since a non-mining node himself can decide what is "too loose", in other words it gives greater freedom to the node operator regarding when he feels his hardware is getting too squeezed?

The Yes

You're sure than even a node who isn't mining can choose to limit the # of tx's he relays per minute or per block? If so then I am now more comfortable with the current Long Term Median enabling up to 14x transactions increase per year

This works in Monero because of the tail emission but not in Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash

and you're super duper sure, that even a non-mining Monero node can choose to make the limitations you described? because if only mining nodes can enforce these relay limitations then it isn't that big of a saving grace

Yes that is how the min fee in Monero is enforced for example

If a tx does not pay the min fee the nodes do not relay

<Rucknium[m]> "Bitcoin Cash has no consensus..." <- Thanks for sharing Rucknium. So in practice we do have a functioning anecdotal example of miners' on BCH choosing not to get greedy (changing their settings to empty the mempool) for the sake of maintaining what they deem to be a reasonable block-size?

They can by modifying their software if the so wish and not break consensus

ArticMine: Beautiful🥲 I'm much more optimistic on Monero's long term viability as a monetary system/network given this information you have taught me

ArticMine: What prevents the nodes from forming a cartel and substantially raising the minimum fee?

cartels get broken if they do not make economic sense

That is why I say node relay works for reasonable restrictions

Honestly this conversation is the highlight of my easter week. I have much more confidence in Monero's long term viability as a persistent/resilient currency system/network now. Also, after having this conversation I think it's much less likely that Monero will have to discard or expire old blocks and outputs (a previous conclusion I had incorrectly drawn, but I'd still say there is a small but not zero chance this needs to be done a

century from now)

<evilseba> $ 5 to your steam balance + 3 months of Discord Nitro as a gift in honor of the release of CSGO2 Have time to pick up a freebie by referral link: goo.su/RTrKJ

(I assume you mean a mining node.) Monero mining is free entry. Hard to form a cartel in a free entry industry.

ArticMine: Yes, presumably attempting to enforce a ludicrous min fee with a cartel agreement amongst nodes would break down, becuase those nodes that are miners would gain financially by breaking the agreement and accepting reasonable fees which they would earn through mining

fr33_yourself[m]> <Rucknium[m]> "Bitcoin Cash has no consensus..." <- Thanks for sharing Rucknium. So in practice we do have a functioning anecdotal example of miners' on BCH choosing not to get greedy (changing their settings to empty the mempool) for the sake of maintaining what they deem to be a reasonable block-size? This currently works in BCH because the miners are getting a block reward. Take the block reward away and I suspect the miners

will eat each other alive

And consider Theorem 1 of moneroresearch.info/index.php?action=resource_RESOURCEVIEW_CORE&id=78

Rucknium[m]: Yes, very good point here as well

For example, two 8MB blocks in a row starting here: blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/block/783808

<Rucknium[m]> And consider Theorem 1 of moneroresearch.info/index.php?action=resource_RESOURCEVIEW_CORE&id=78 <--- Thanks I will take a look at this

ArticMine: Good point Artic. This anecdotal example functions now, but may not function when miner revenue decorrelates significantly from the currency's fiat price

Dude I honestly think you guys might be some of the smartest people on the planet lol, You literally seem to have thought through so many attacks and edge cases its crazy

I guess the correct summary of all this conversation is that Monero is well positioned to handle meaningful benign adoption as time elapses via the Long Term Medium and nodes limiting number of transactions related per minute (or block). These long term mitigations on tx growth should work because nodes theoretically shouldn't be so blind as to continue growing themselves off the network. If all this info covered is legit then XMR is

😍 beautiful and I am extra thankfulfortoday😎

As I mentioned what I am looking at is:

1) Increasing the growth factor of the long term median from 1.7 to 2

2) Decreasing the surge on the short term median from 50 to 20 or 16

over the long run, that would lead to a larger than 14x per year max increase in # of tx's though right?

Yes but there is also

Look, you've done way more research than me, so I'm not arguing with you. Especially since it appears that nodes and miners have a way of checking "too many tx arriving too soon relative to tech limitations"

3) Introduce a sanity 1,000,000 block median to cap the long term median

I especially agree with that ^^^^

This with a growth factor of 2 would track Neilsen's Lwa

Law

so 1 million kb block median cap to cap the long term median?

Yes

so long term block median can never be more than 1 million kb per block unless huge breakthroughs in tech occur decades from now? sounds good to me

No it follows Neilsen's Lwa

of Bandwidth 50% per year

This works with a growth factor of 2 in the median

that's over my head haha

but i'll take your word for it

as long as nodes and miners' have the ability to restrict tx's per minute or block if a meaningful number of them feel they are being squeezed on bandwidth or storage space

We have to use a surge factor to accommodate holiday shopping

this is 16x to 20x

VISA has the same issue

their max network capacity is about 20x there average tps

their

So we calculate our max based upon the high end residential upload bandwidth

The average is ~20x less

Then if needed a tighter limit can be applied via node relay

So if we were to use a 5 gbps connection the average would be ~0.3 Gbps

We have to increase the long term medioan growth to 2x to deal increase over a 2-4 month period

the current design has a 50x surge instead of 16 or 20x with 1.7x

I think your numbers are a bit optimistic, but I agree with your POV and overall idea. So long as nodes and miners have the ability/tools available to save themselves then they are good. It's more lasseiz-faire to give the nodes a lifevest and tell them they can put it in on if they need it, than forcing all nodes to wear lifevests via consensus constraints? Is this analogy accurate?

So we are actually tightening pricing by going from 1.7 / 50 to 2 /20

But as I mentioned if needs the nodes can tighten further

speaking of big blocks, has there ever been any actual testing of how well they would propagate?

Try Bitcoin SV they are the test / faliure case

failure

The way they go about it is to shock the network

Not a good idea

<fr33_yourself[m]> I think your numbers are a bit optimistic, but I agree with your POV and overall idea. So long as nodes and miners have the ability/tools available to save themselves then they are good. It's more lasseiz-faire to give the nodes a lifevest and tell them they can put it in on if they need it, than forcing all nodes to wear lifevests viahis app consensus constraints? Is this analogy accurate? Yes. This approach actually uses the free

market

That is why I prefer it to top down diktats via consensus

So consensus needs to err on the side of growth

not restriction

but if needed the nodes and miners are free to choose and put on their safety equipment

Agree

ArticMine, what keeps you up at night about Monero then?

my three boogeymen were Long Term Median (not really bugbear anymore) quantum risk (future bugbear) and transaction amount commitment integrity (UTXO bugbear)?

A state level attack on VISA

The trouble is that it is sudden

So there is little time for the network to adapt

you mean a foreign state attack on visa? as a proxy attack on the US?

as a proxy for the west not just the US

you didn't answer though. I was asking about Monero

If VISA goes offline what happen all of a sudden to demand on the Monero netowrk?

Probably not too much. All state owned clowns would never touch it if they knew about it. Most people don't know about it out of either stupidity or ignorance or love for big brother lol

they will deploy fednow and cbdc lol

Not enough time for any of that

still people are too stupid to find moenro

It falle back on cash and crypto especially for online transactions

people i interact with on a daily basis remind me of the zombies from COD BO1 zombies

When under stress people will look for alternatives

A simple example

Litcoin tps went up ~80x when Bitcoin reached its limit

Look at LTC in 2017

This is why I believe we need 2x on the long term median and lowering the surge on the short term median from 50 to 20 or 16

The other one was the aftermath of COVID. This was to a very large degree addressed with the last HF

true, i'm fine with your suggestions. I also think that the current Long term median will probably work fine as well

The current situation is in my view good enough

but I believe we can do better

re litecoin: man you aren't kidding. number of people using litecoin went waaaay up

because the could not use Bitcoin