somehow by pure luck i think i have just enough monero for a deposit wow

deposit for what

havenoreto

ah

has anyone actually gotten actual xmrs from there?

what is the deposit amount for havenoreto?

i thought they got rid of the deposit amount of buying XMR

depends on offer

or are you selling XMR?

there are offers without deposit even

no, buying Cindy

ah

i remember localmonero was so good... so easy to get xmr via that

they have gotten rid of deposits for buying XMR though

of course, i have some contacts that sold me some xmr here and there... but i want to try it without that

just like i downloaded haveno, monero wallet, elektrum wallet

Cindy: who localmonero or haveno?

haveno

haveno has not gotten rid of deposits to the best of my knowledge

but they did make it optional at least

if i remember

for buying XMR

in im running haveno-v1.2.0-linux-x86_64.AppImage

Cindy: yes, you can click "no deposit" and only view offers that require no deposit

yeah

it wasn't like that before

haveno used to always require deposits regardless

i used it before

oh i didnt know that

but yeah, you dont need a deposit apparently... the problem with no deposit offers is that they're mostly 0.4-1.5 XMR

so 0.4 minimum

it was annoying to people that they had to get some initial XMR for the deposit to buy XMR (like catch 22)

so they changed it to make deposits optional (for offers to buy XMR ONLY)

oh 0.4 XMR minimum?

not a lot of breathing room i guess

right this second

i imagine offers change constantly + you can make your own offer i think...?

yeah you can make your own offer

i mean by current rate that's about a hundred bucks

i say that's reasonable

but you have to make it a little generous if you want somebody to take it fast

oh wow this SWIFT offer starts at 10 XMR lol

wow

i mean that's the problem with haveno offers tbh lol

they have an absurd amount of minimum XMRs

the main problem with haveno is just the UI and the complexity

it's based on bisq

like say i found offer pay-by-mail that looks good, it's minimum 0.2 xmr, maximum 22 xmr that's 42-4655 british pounds... i dont have pounds but say i did have them

now i'm looking at the deposit cell, precisely "Deposit XMR" column

you could get away with the currency differences if it was some payment service

but i assume they have to factor in conversion fees

but considering pay-by-mail

so there's a "<= 3.34452 (15%)" in there

.. you better go find some british pound bills :P

what does that mean? :)

15% is probably the percentage above exchange rate

i assume the price is tied to the exchange rate rather than being static

ah maybe but why oh why is it in the deposit column

ok screw it let's look at something i can actually click at... the XMR/BTC

i think if the offer is about buying, the percentage represents ABOVE exchange rate

while selling, percentage represents BELOW exchange rate

(of course the percentage can be negative.. for any reason)

there's offer XMR/BTC with price "0.00222925 (4.40%)" and min-max 0.05-4.99 XMR

in deposit column it has <= 0.7485 (15%)

again what does that mean? :)

i think you can type whatever in the deposit part, and haveno will automatically convert

it's been quite a while since i used haveno lol

ok so the exchange rate is in the Price column i belive

believe

hù

wtf did i type

you need more monero for the security deposit

like 0.10 XMR

so i did acquire some bitcoin last night... i have exactly 0.10 xmr

also.. 200.00% of the trade amount?

wtf is this offer?

the deposit is bigger than the trade amount

well 0.103xxxxblablabla

ah

so the trade amount is less than 25 dollars :P

i think i'll make it same

i'll try to get 0.1 xmr and i think that means ill have to deposit 0.1 xmr

another problem is like... who are these people?? on localmonero you could see a person's profile, you could see their reviews, how many trades they did etc

you'll never know

that's the thing about haveno

but haveno has deposits to prevent scams

i mean idk

you should ONLY release the deposit after you get the money

from my point of view it's just asking me to give it monero lol

lol

i think this would have the potential to be much bigger if it wasn't so damn confusing

i mean, the deposit is there just to penalize potential scammers

Cindy: have you like traded on haveno?

yes

did it work?

yeah it did

ok that's really making me feel better

i mean, the person i traded with was really nice

but if at any time, things go wrong, you can click the "arbitrate" button

it's like a system where a 3rd party (the arbitrator) examines the whole thing, asks you both some questions, and decides what to do (either send money to the seller or buyer)

wait you can talk to them too? or at least you could at the time?

yeah you can talk to the buyer/seller

i'm realizing that haveno is actively in development

via chat

and even arbitrator when the trade is currently in arbitration

so the version you were using was most likely different than mine

nah

not that different from the UI at least

then again, its a fork of bisq

both have similar UIs

ok but there is the main software.. haveno and then reto is this particular network i think

yeah reto is the network

also i have 0.103908037906 xmr... i really hope that after fees and everything it'll be enough to cover deposit

the deposit is a mix of the buyer and seller's funds

so it isn't just you.. just in case you're wondering

i'm trying to do this also to see if there's anything i can send a PR on

oh really

yeah

it's a security deposit for a reason

so there's an internal xmr wallet in haveno

both you and the other party send their own part into the deposit

do i move my xmr there beforehand or do i just send it to the wallet they give me when asking for deposit

nah, the program does it automatically

it's a 3-to-2 multisig wallet

(3 parties, 2 signatures required to properly sign a transaction)

2 signatures of either party*

ok so what i'm wondering is, should i load my wallet with xmr before to clicking on any offers?

yeah, you should load haveno's wallet with xmr

so it can handle stuff

it likes to do things automatically

ok so im sending all my 0.103908037906 of xmr to the haveno wallet

oh boy that's like $26 of monero im nervous lol

i'm not really that nervous. first of all, it looks like i can do trades without deposit i'll just have to get more bitcoin and risk a hundred dollars. second of all, i have some connections left over from localmonero that i can contact and trade a little bit of xmr with personally.

the only way you'll lose money is if the other guy is a dick

and the arbitrator is also a dick

which ideally shouldn't happen

but xmrbazaar has had some malicious arbitrators

what i might be sending a PR about is the ability to select and copy things... like i had to type all those numbers manually before.

when you're in the table of offers, there's no way you can like just copy stuff from the table to a clipboard. and i know from personal experience working with clipboard in X or Wayland is a bit of a bitch but it's kinda important :)

i think you can... copy things?

oh so i figured out a workaround kinda

you can click on the (i) button like next to whatever payment method you have and then you get this window that seems like you can copy things there

oh god

so you can copy things... but only those things that have that clipboard icon

anyway im just ranting now :)

it's pretty easy to deal with this issue using like normcap or textsnatcher or something else tesseract-based

How is everyone

Soiled: soiling our pants, seeing Unknown pool percentage climb higher from 23 to 24

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Unknown pool percentage is 19.6% now

miningpoolstats.stream/monero says 24.1%

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> That's a snapshot of the last 1000 blocks, which only represents the hash rate from the past 24 hours. Given its limited scope, it's subject to a lot of randomness. If you're looking for a more accurate picture of the current LIVE hash rate, check out the network hashrate header:

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Network Hashrate

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> 5.60 GH/s

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> (5.04 GH/s)

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> 19.6 % unknown

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> That's a snapshot of the last 1000 blocks, which only represents the block distribution from the past 33 hours. Given its limited scope, it's subject to a lot of randomness. If you're looking for a more accurate picture of the current LIVE hash rate, check out the network hashrate header:

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Network Hashrate

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> 5.60 GH/s

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> (5.04 GH/s)

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> 19.6 % unknown

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Before qubic began mining, approximately 2% of the network was comprised of solo miners. to estimate their current hash rate, you can subtract 2% from the total hashrate

so you are saying qubic is still currently mining?

without trying to reorg

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> They're currently mining, but don't have enough to perform deep block re-orgs. Qubic has only managed to reach a maximum of around 30% of the network's hash rate and hasn't been able to sustain it for long periods. MineXMR was a pool that maintained an 48% of Monero's total hashrate on a consistent basis back in 2022. This current issue with Qubic is significantly better than Mine<clipped message>

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> XMR's situation, which was much worse. It's fortunate that the MineXMR shutdown occurred when it did

alright

What led te MineXMR shutting down?

makes sense, but doesn't it not profitable to rent hashrate or pay miners x2-x3 as they claim they do for mining on their pool?

<r​avfx:xmr.mx> MineXMR where not shitting on other people blocks and closed to apease the network

how is qubic situation?

<r​avfx:xmr.mx> MineXMR where not actually hostile, as far as I know

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> MineXMR shut down voluntarily, as they chose not to pose an existential threat to the network's decentralization

trying first ever trade on havenoreto

Did Monero not learn to adapt then? Or is there no way to adapt?

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Compared to MineXMR, Qubic is nothing. It reveals that the system isn't perfect, but a 51% attack via Qubic is still highly unlikely. They might temporarily regain around 30% of the network's hashrate in the short term, but it's unlikely they could sustain such a level for an extended period

blah it glitched out... so apparently it's better to have BCH than BTC on haveno, many more offers with BCH and at reasonable minimums

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Evolver tevador (a Monero developer) posted a solid proposal in response, but I think it misses the point that PoW/PoS are vulnerable to 51% attacks regardless of which consensus algorithm is used. The fact remains that pools owned by Bitmain can already carry out a 51% attack on Bitcoin, and they could do so again if they chose to. None of the consensus algorithms are perfect, bu<clipped message>

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> t Monero's can be improved

sorry i'll stop interrupting y'all are having much more serious conversation with much higher urgency. good luck i'll keep an eye on this room.

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Improve PoW + have a hybrid consensus -> gain(?)

nopeeee: Can be improved in which ways? Also, how about a hybrid, yes

Not claiming anything about the effect of a hybrid.

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Here's Tevador's proposal: monero-project/research-lab #98

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> It aims to improve decentralization by requiring pools to either send cache to miners (that may be unfeasible, but people are suggesting there might be flaws) or for miners to run their own node, at which point mining on p2pool (a decentralized pool) would become appealing.

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Hybird PoW + PoS was also suggested with a finaliity layer, but the problem is 1) most of the Monero community don't like PoS and 2) it would likely take at least 2 years to implement.

actually

now that i thought about tevador's proposal

how would remote nodes react to that

small miners mine stuff from public remote monero nodes (like in gupax by default)

would the clients have to ask around random stuff in the remote node's blockchain

and would the remote node handle this well at scale?

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Small miners can mine on p2pool

yeah but p2pool also needs a monero node

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Yeah the downside is it would disproportionately affect small miners, who would need to set up their own node. this would force many small miners to choose between quitting the network or hosting their own node

and tevador's proposal has the cache be selected from random parts of the blockchain

which would cause the client to ask a lot of stuff from the node

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> My answer to the second question: Sometimes is needed a bitter pill. I believe a hybrid consensus system is good if implemented correctly. Ultimately.

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> It would be about 3G of bandwidth per day for the client

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> I like hybrid, but do we really want to wait at least 2 years to implement it?

public nodes would start ratelimiting blockchain searches

to mitigate the effects

and thus, making mining on a remote public node harder

and well, harder for small miners to participate

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> I think small miners will face significant disincentives as well, but the resulting hash rate decline is likely to be relatively small. Those who genuinely want to contribute to the network can simply run their own node

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> we can implement the other things first until the finality layer is ready, in 2 years it would be the longer term solution and during those two years we improve PoW.

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> And after too

pools will just require people to host their own monero node

as a work-around

and p2pool will probably be the same, for the sake of not killing public nodes

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> If you host your own node, why wouldn't you mine on p2pool?

<u​sb:envs.net> Yes

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> It makes no sense for someone who hosts their own node to mine on anything other than p2pool which has 0% fees

pools will not increase fees because they will not be offering RandomX caches

for the sake of bandwidth

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Also @xenu, I'd like to correct your take on Monetalk regarding the fee increase proposal. To be honest, I don't think anyone is seriously considering that idea anymore. The main proposals are Tevador's and PoW + PoS, which will soon be formalized in a discussion thread: monero-project/meta #1254

big pools may justify the cost a bit

but the smaller ones will just force people to host thier own monero node

also there's also the fact that not everyone (who wants to contribute to the network) has the necessary equipment to host a whole monero node

Hosting your own node just to mine is a big ask, why wouldn’t the average Joe just mine something else

for one, even i don't have a SSD

i can't host one because monerod completely uses up 100% I/O

so i have to mine off of a public remote node

if i was forced to host a monero node to mine (even if i didn't have the proper equipment to do so), it would drive me off of mining completel

baz: exactly

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> It's a trade-off: the average Joe (small miners) will likely leave the Monero mining scene altogether. I believe that the resulting loss of hash rate, although significant, may be worth it in order to further decentralize the network

depends

if it's 30%-40% the global hashrate

it might not actually be worth it

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Yes, the potential impact on hash rate distribution was a point of discussion

i'm fine with PoW + PoS

this should only really be a temporary solution

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Implementing the hybrid solution hinges on whether or not the 51% threat remains persistent. With a 2 year implementation timeline, it's uncertain how the community will respond to the introduction of PoS. If adopted, I worry that it could lead to a split in the network similar to what happened with Ethereum Classic and ETH

since it'll massively deincentivise mining for the average joe

It can remain a last ditch option, implemented but not merged unless the price and hash activity drops really low

so when you have nothing left to lose

PoW+PoS or bandwidth

?

whichever ones are controversial

can proof of stake be modified to incentivise p2pool?

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> The hybrid solution isn't perfect and still poses vulnerabilities. CEXs are likely to become dominant validators, which is concerning given their shady nature. The unknown distribution of XMR makes it difficult to predict how the network will actually be structured. If we're drawing parallels with Ethereum's distribution, I think that PoS will be bad for the network

like you can only stake mined blocks

mined monero*

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Yes, PoS can be modified to ensure that each block requires a fixed amount of tokens to be staked

if you send your mined monero to someone else, it becomes unstakeable

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Yes, PoS can be modified to ensure that each block = a fixed amount of tokens to be staked

yeah, i don't know how to design that thouh

considering monero's privacy details

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> It doesn't necessarily have to be XMR that is staked, although implementing it as the stake token would be the simplest solution

implementing XMR as the stake token would favor the richest people and CEXs

we need some sort of token that only applies to mined monero

Why wouldn't it be XMR that is staked? That's the whole point of the PoS component, is it not...

so that miners are the ones who are favored, not people with the most money

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> E​volver It doesn't have to be. You can use 1 block = 1 token to stake for example

can a block be tied to a specific wallet address?

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> CEXs hate Monero, this is good to a PoS hybrid consensus :)

like completely unmmovable tokens

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> We could better demonstrate to the community how implementing a hybrid system in Monero could be beneficial. I've noticed that many who oppose PoS use the same arguments against a hybrid system. We should also make it clear that we will never be 100% PoS (and will always focus on PoW, although PoS integration would be very helpful). It's an idea, but the biggest problem with the h<clipped message>

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> ybrid system so far is community support. I believe it's necessary to demonstrate to the community how a hybrid system will make us even more decentralized and won't affect PoW.

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> I feel like this could easily be gamed

i don't like when only the rich people are the only ones who get to benefit from this

or CEXs with a massive amount of XMR

Btw, regarding miners, would weighing the RandomX hash more in favor of memory (RAM) help?

no

randomX's RAM requirement is already super massive in comparsion to any other mining algo

nopeeee: can you tell me more about how? :o

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> The common criticism is that adopting a hybrid system using both PoW and PoS might as well make us switch to PoS entirely

I think having a secondary token would confuse and complicate things too much for a foundational crypto like Monero.

this is why tokens should be tied to the blocks that a wallet mined

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> From what I understand, PoW will still have most of the reward, so PoS is another additional layer of protection.

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> by PoS layer, you mean the finality layer?

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Yes

Evolver: is it a bad idea?

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> I believe that no one here wants a 100% PoS system, as this will only bring us disadvantages, a hybrid system solves most of the problems if implemented correctly (we can make the stake completely self-custodial to take away the possible power of CEXs, although Monero does not have large CEXs like in other blockchains like BTC or ETH).

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> This is the proposal: monero-project/research-lab #135

I don't know if I like PoS alot, maybe Stellar's PoA?

but PoS+PoW can make mining outside of pools more profitable

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> finality layer is the only solution that sticks IMO... no other option disables the existence of private chains that can force reorgs / chain forks

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> as for rewards, why not just give finality validators <1 % of the block reward?

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> also, make each validator node be identified by a wallet... they'll have to expose their view keys so that their funds can be marked "burned" if they misbehave

but yeah

you have to have a seperate wallet for mining

just in case you don't accidentally burn your own funds in an accident

Fwiw, PoS is not without its attacks, e.g. arxiv.org/abs/2505.07713

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> How would making the stake self-custodial prevent CEXs? Assuming their Monero is held in hot wallets they own, CEXes can still fractionally reserve XMR by staking user deposits

Evolver: this is something that can be solved with BGPsec

but like, hijacking IP prefixes sounds easy on paper

but in reality, it'll probably just DDoS yourself instead

see: malaysia telecom's "accidental" hijacking of facebook's ASN

but also the CEX problem can be solved by staking tokens gained by mining, but i don't actually know if that's a good idea

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> An issue with Tevador's proposal I just thought of is that if we assume botnets contribute significantly to Monero's hash rate, then the proposal will likely destroy all botnets. On one hand, this means that botnets are no longer a threat. On the other hand, this could have a negative effect: during the transition, the hash rate may drop so low that the network becomes easily vulnerable

like in the github issue, "assigning anyone who mines a block 1 stake"

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> For CEXs to have greater power, they can hold users' funds (not your keys, not your coins). Of course, they can still have liquidity, but I believe this would help a lot, despite being more of a mitigation measure. In any case, the attack would be very costly, having to exploit two consensus mechanisms. If the community notices that one has been compromised, we'll still have the o<clipped message>

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> ther, which allows us more time to respond to an attack.

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Cindy, I said it could be gamed because that would mean the PoS distribution would simply reflect the PoW distribution. As a result, centralized pools with high hash rates would end up with the most tokens, and could potentially attack both the PoW and PoS finality layer

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> how would one attack the finality layer other than DDoSing the validator nodes?

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> A transition to a hybrid system should be made over time (probably a few months). Good side: we won't have any more botnets. Bad side: we won't have any more botnets. lol

ah

nopeeee: that makes sense

yeah it seems like a bad idea

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> If the set of validators is determined by 1 block = 1 token, then pools with the highest hash rate would essentially become the validators. This would lead to centralization, allowing them to '51%' attack both the PoW network and the finality layer

wait

i actually thought of a countermeasure

since all the validators must disclose their view key

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> If the validators are determined by staking one's own XMR, the distribution is likely to be different from 1 block = 1 token. However, this would still pose a problem: the wealthiest individuals and CEXes could potentially become the dominant validators

and pools must distribute the rewards to its miners

<f​iatmoneysucks:matrix.org> Decred created this: dcrdata.decred.org/attack-cost This shows how costly a serious attack is. Considering that Monero is much more expensive than Decred, this attack would be almost economic suicide for the attacker. This is just counting the code, as we still have the Monero community on our side against a potential attacker.

then basically, tie the tokens to monero mined

if they get sent to someone else, deduct a token

(the person who gets the monero will not have the token)

this would punish centralized pools, because they have to send the rewards out somehow

while letting the honest miners stockpile the tokens and withdraw to their main wallet without issues

(other than no tokens)

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> why not just make anyone with a minimum of 1 unit of "staked token" (be it XMR, block, or whatever) equally a validator? any additional "staked token" will not grant you bigger weight

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> a side-effect would be too many validators (thus, network latency + congestion)

<n​opeeee:nope.chat> Cindy, I guess that could work. However, I'm still uncertain about how such an implementation would actually be carried out

so basically 1 block == 1 stake, but sending out monero to some other wallet will deduct <amount> / <block reward> amount of stakes

nopeeee: well, the wallets are assumed to be completely dedicated to the mining/validation (due to the exposed view key)

so it would probably involve some complicated network consenus?

it would be the same as regular PoS but you do not count monero obtained from other means, just mining

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Proof of pow 🙃

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> similar idea to what i was saying, the pos would be based on coinbases-only

Other than PoS, would proof-of-burn help?

Proof-of-burn, even with PoW.

Maybe it'll also take less than two years to implement.