00:07:47 somehow by pure luck i think i have just enough monero for a deposit wow 00:08:02 deposit for what 00:08:36 havenoreto 00:08:46 ah 00:08:47 has anyone actually gotten actual xmrs from there? 00:09:26 what is the deposit amount for havenoreto? 00:10:57 i thought they got rid of the deposit amount of buying XMR 00:11:02 depends on offer 00:11:23 or are you selling XMR? 00:11:26 there are offers without deposit even 00:11:34 no, buying Cindy 00:11:43 ah 00:12:17 i remember localmonero was so good... so easy to get xmr via that 00:12:32 they have gotten rid of deposits for buying XMR though 00:13:07 of course, i have some contacts that sold me some xmr here and there... but i want to try it without that 00:13:22 just like i downloaded haveno, monero wallet, elektrum wallet 00:13:30 Cindy: who localmonero or haveno? 00:13:39 haveno 00:14:02 haveno has not gotten rid of deposits to the best of my knowledge 00:14:11 but they did make it optional at least 00:14:14 if i remember 00:14:26 for buying XMR 00:14:36 in im running haveno-v1.2.0-linux-x86_64.AppImage 00:14:59 Cindy: yes, you can click "no deposit" and only view offers that require no deposit 00:15:08 yeah 00:15:11 it wasn't like that before 00:15:19 haveno used to always require deposits regardless 00:15:35 i used it before 00:15:43 oh i didnt know that 00:16:44 but yeah, you dont need a deposit apparently... the problem with no deposit offers is that they're mostly 0.4-1.5 XMR 00:16:51 so 0.4 minimum 00:16:52 it was annoying to people that they had to get some initial XMR for the deposit to buy XMR (like catch 22) 00:17:09 so they changed it to make deposits optional (for offers to buy XMR ONLY) 00:17:38 oh 0.4 XMR minimum? 00:17:43 not a lot of breathing room i guess 00:17:45 right this second 00:17:58 i imagine offers change constantly + you can make your own offer i think...? 00:18:08 yeah you can make your own offer 00:18:12 i mean by current rate that's about a hundred bucks 00:18:18 i say that's reasonable 00:18:20 but you have to make it a little generous if you want somebody to take it fast 00:19:47 oh wow this SWIFT offer starts at 10 XMR lol 00:20:05 wow 00:20:17 i mean that's the problem with haveno offers tbh lol 00:20:27 they have an absurd amount of minimum XMRs 00:21:15 the main problem with haveno is just the UI and the complexity 00:22:16 it's based on bisq 00:22:24 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 00:23:02 now i'm looking at the deposit cell, precisely "Deposit XMR" column 00:23:07 you could get away with the currency differences if it was some payment service 00:23:15 but i assume they have to factor in conversion fees 00:23:32 but considering pay-by-mail 00:23:38 so there's a "<= 3.34452 (15%)" in there 00:23:42 .. you better go find some british pound bills :P 00:23:43 what does that mean? :) 00:24:16 15% is probably the percentage above exchange rate 00:24:26 i assume the price is tied to the exchange rate rather than being static 00:24:37 ah maybe but why oh why is it in the deposit column 00:24:57 ok screw it let's look at something i can actually click at... the XMR/BTC 00:25:27 i think if the offer is about buying, the percentage represents ABOVE exchange rate 00:25:36 while selling, percentage represents BELOW exchange rate 00:25:45 (of course the percentage can be negative.. for any reason) 00:26:09 there's offer XMR/BTC with price "0.00222925 (4.40%)" and min-max 0.05-4.99 XMR 00:26:36 in deposit column it has <= 0.7485 (15%) 00:26:41 again what does that mean? :) 00:26:52 i think you can type whatever in the deposit part, and haveno will automatically convert 00:27:03 it's been quite a while since i used haveno lol 00:27:08 ok so the exchange rate is in the Price column i belive 00:27:11 believe 00:27:33 hù 00:27:43 wtf did i type 00:31:46 https://pwnednetwork.com/public/screenshots/haveno_deposit.png 00:32:40 you need more monero for the security deposit 00:32:43 like 0.10 XMR 00:32:50 so i did acquire some bitcoin last night... i have exactly 0.10 xmr 00:32:51 also.. 200.00% of the trade amount? 00:32:57 wtf is this offer? 00:33:09 the deposit is bigger than the trade amount 00:33:10 well 0.103xxxxblablabla 00:33:17 ah 00:33:34 so the trade amount is less than 25 dollars :P 00:34:35 i think i'll make it same 00:34:51 i'll try to get 0.1 xmr and i think that means ill have to deposit 0.1 xmr 00:35:22 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 00:35:29 you'll never know 00:35:42 that's the thing about haveno 00:35:53 but haveno has deposits to prevent scams 00:36:10 i mean idk 00:36:12 you should ONLY release the deposit after you get the money 00:36:20 from my point of view it's just asking me to give it monero lol 00:36:31 lol 00:36:41 i think this would have the potential to be much bigger if it wasn't so damn confusing 00:36:52 i mean, the deposit is there just to penalize potential scammers 00:37:23 Cindy: have you like traded on haveno? 00:37:44 yes 00:37:48 did it work? 00:37:50 yeah it did 00:38:03 ok that's really making me feel better 00:38:15 i mean, the person i traded with was really nice 00:38:30 but if at any time, things go wrong, you can click the "arbitrate" button 00:39:17 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) 00:39:17 wait you can talk to them too? or at least you could at the time? 00:39:29 yeah you can talk to the buyer/seller 00:39:29 i'm realizing that haveno is actively in development 00:39:31 via chat 00:39:38 and even arbitrator when the trade is currently in arbitration 00:39:39 so the version you were using was most likely different than mine 00:39:45 nah 00:39:50 not that different from the UI at least 00:40:13 then again, its a fork of bisq 00:40:18 both have similar UIs 00:40:54 ok but there is the main software.. haveno and then reto is this particular network i think 00:41:06 yeah reto is the network 00:41:21 also i have 0.103908037906 xmr... i really hope that after fees and everything it'll be enough to cover deposit 00:42:12 the deposit is a mix of the buyer and seller's funds 00:42:20 so it isn't just you.. just in case you're wondering 00:42:24 i'm trying to do this also to see if there's anything i can send a PR on 00:42:30 oh really 00:42:33 yeah 00:42:40 it's a security deposit for a reason 00:43:02 so there's an internal xmr wallet in haveno 00:43:15 both you and the other party send their own part into the deposit 00:43:23 do i move my xmr there beforehand or do i just send it to the wallet they give me when asking for deposit 00:43:32 nah, the program does it automatically 00:43:41 it's a 3-to-2 multisig wallet 00:43:54 (3 parties, 2 signatures required to properly sign a transaction) 00:44:09 2 signatures of either party* 00:44:17 ok so what i'm wondering is, should i load my wallet with xmr before to clicking on any offers? 00:44:30 yeah, you should load haveno's wallet with xmr 00:44:33 so it can handle stuff 00:44:40 it likes to do things automatically 00:45:40 ok so im sending all my 0.103908037906 of xmr to the haveno wallet 00:45:51 oh boy that's like $26 of monero im nervous lol 00:47:19 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. 00:47:59 the only way you'll lose money is if the other guy is a dick 00:48:04 and the arbitrator is also a dick 00:48:16 which ideally shouldn't happen 00:48:34 but xmrbazaar has had some malicious arbitrators 00:48:44 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. 00:49:54 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 :) 00:50:10 i think you can... copy things? 00:50:42 oh so i figured out a workaround kinda 00:51:45 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 00:54:44 oh god 00:54:48 https://pwnednetwork.com/public/screenshots/haveno_ui_clipboard.png 00:55:11 so you can copy things... but only those things that have that clipboard icon 01:01:07 anyway im just ranting now :) 01:01:48 it's pretty easy to deal with this issue using like normcap or textsnatcher or something else tesseract-based 01:19:42 How is everyone 02:26:24 Soiled: soiling our pants, seeing Unknown pool percentage climb higher from 23 to 24 02:27:16 Unknown pool percentage is 19.6% now 02:27:58 https://miningpoolstats.stream/monero says 24.1% 02:29:56 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: 02:29:57 Network Hashrate 02:29:59 5.60 GH/s 02:30:01 (5.04 GH/s) 02:30:03 19.6 % unknown 02:30:32 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: 02:30:33 Network Hashrate 02:30:35 5.60 GH/s 02:30:37 (5.04 GH/s) 02:30:39 19.6 % unknown 02:31:50 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 02:32:40 so you are saying qubic is still currently mining? 02:33:15 without trying to reorg 02:35:24 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 02:35:25 XMR's situation, which was much worse. It's fortunate that the MineXMR shutdown occurred when it did 02:37:50 alright 02:37:55 What led te MineXMR shutting down? 02:38:03 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? 02:38:07 MineXMR where not shitting on other people blocks and closed to apease the network 02:38:37 how is qubic situation? 02:38:39 MineXMR where not actually hostile, as far as I know 02:38:41 MineXMR shut down voluntarily, as they chose not to pose an existential threat to the network's decentralization 02:39:59 trying first ever trade on havenoreto 02:40:05 Did Monero not learn to adapt then? Or is there no way to adapt? 02:40:19 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 02:43:13 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 02:44:36 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 02:44:37 t Monero's can be improved 02:45:48 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. 02:46:10 Improve PoW + have a hybrid consensus -> gain(?) 02:46:17 nopeeee: Can be improved in which ways? Also, how about a hybrid, yes 02:46:38 Not claiming anything about the effect of a hybrid. 02:50:26 Here's Tevador's proposal: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/98 02:50:27 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. 02:50:29 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. 02:50:59 actually 02:51:06 now that i thought about tevador's proposal 02:51:11 how would remote nodes react to that 02:52:02 small miners mine stuff from public remote monero nodes (like in gupax by default) 02:53:30 would the clients have to ask around random stuff in the remote node's blockchain 02:53:47 and would the remote node handle this well at scale? 02:53:52 Small miners can mine on p2pool 02:54:02 yeah but p2pool also needs a monero node 02:54:28 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 02:54:38 and tevador's proposal has the cache be selected from random parts of the blockchain 02:54:55 which would cause the client to ask a lot of stuff from the node 02:55:19 My answer to the second question: Sometimes is needed a bitter pill. I believe a hybrid consensus system is good if implemented correctly. Ultimately. 02:55:36 It would be about 3G of bandwidth per day for the client 02:56:09 I like hybrid, but do we really want to wait at least 2 years to implement it? 02:56:20 public nodes would start ratelimiting blockchain searches 02:56:31 to mitigate the effects 02:56:43 and thus, making mining on a remote public node harder 02:56:51 and well, harder for small miners to participate 02:58:43 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 02:59:16 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. 02:59:26 And after too 03:00:47 pools will just require people to host their own monero node 03:00:52 as a work-around 03:01:30 and p2pool will probably be the same, for the sake of not killing public nodes 03:01:44 If you host your own node, why wouldn't you mine on p2pool? 03:01:57 Yes 03:02:02 It makes no sense for someone who hosts their own node to mine on anything other than p2pool which has 0% fees 03:02:23 pools will not increase fees because they will not be offering RandomX caches 03:02:29 for the sake of bandwidth 03:02:58 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: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/1254 03:03:22 big pools may justify the cost a bit 03:03:30 but the smaller ones will just force people to host thier own monero node 03:04:38 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 03:04:46 Hosting your own node just to mine is a big ask, why wouldn’t the average Joe just mine something else 03:04:58 for one, even i don't have a SSD 03:05:13 i can't host one because monerod completely uses up 100% I/O 03:05:28 so i have to mine off of a public remote node 03:06:09 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 03:07:37 baz: exactly 03:07:39 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 03:08:39 depends 03:08:48 if it's 30%-40% the global hashrate 03:08:53 it might not actually be worth it 03:09:28 Yes, the potential impact on hash rate distribution was a point of discussion 03:09:29 i'm fine with PoW + PoS 03:12:09 this should only really be a temporary solution 03:12:15 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 03:12:31 since it'll massively deincentivise mining for the average joe 03:13:27 It can remain a last ditch option, implemented but not merged unless the price and hash activity drops really low 03:13:32 so when you have nothing left to lose 03:13:57 PoW+PoS or bandwidth 03:13:59 ? 03:14:16 whichever ones are controversial 03:15:12 can proof of stake be modified to incentivise p2pool? 03:15:28 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 03:15:32 like you can only stake mined blocks 03:15:37 mined monero* 03:16:06 Yes, PoS can be modified to ensure that each block requires a fixed amount of tokens to be staked 03:16:15 if you send your mined monero to someone else, it becomes unstakeable 03:16:16 Yes, PoS can be modified to ensure that each block = a fixed amount of tokens to be staked 03:16:53 yeah, i don't know how to design that thouh 03:17:01 considering monero's privacy details 03:17:04 It doesn't necessarily have to be XMR that is staked, although implementing it as the stake token would be the simplest solution 03:17:37 implementing XMR as the stake token would favor the richest people and CEXs 03:17:53 we need some sort of token that only applies to mined monero 03:17:55 Why wouldn't it be XMR that is staked? That's the whole point of the PoS component, is it not... 03:18:16 so that miners are the ones who are favored, not people with the most money 03:19:12 Evolver It doesn't have to be. You can use 1 block = 1 token to stake for example 03:19:48 can a block be tied to a specific wallet address? 03:19:52 CEXs hate Monero, this is good to a PoS hybrid consensus :) 03:20:09 like completely unmmovable tokens 03:20:18 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 03:20:19 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. 03:20:37 I feel like this could easily be gamed 03:20:48 i don't like when only the rich people are the only ones who get to benefit from this 03:21:15 or CEXs with a massive amount of XMR 03:21:27 Btw, regarding miners, would weighing the RandomX hash more in favor of memory (RAM) help? 03:21:38 no 03:21:56 randomX's RAM requirement is already super massive in comparsion to any other mining algo 03:22:31 nopeeee: can you tell me more about how? :o 03:22:44 The common criticism is that adopting a hybrid system using both PoW and PoS might as well make us switch to PoS entirely 03:23:48 I think having a secondary token would confuse and complicate things too much for a foundational crypto like Monero. 03:23:50 this is why tokens should be tied to the blocks that a wallet mined 03:24:09 From what I understand, PoW will still have most of the reward, so PoS is another additional layer of protection. 03:25:54 by PoS layer, you mean the finality layer? 03:26:17 Yes 03:26:41 Evolver: is it a bad idea? 03:26:55 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). 03:28:20 This is the proposal: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/135 03:28:32 I don't know if I like PoS alot, maybe Stellar's PoA? 03:31:19 but PoS+PoW can make mining outside of pools more profitable 03:31:20 finality layer is the only solution that sticks IMO... no other option disables the existence of private chains that can force reorgs / chain forks 03:31:21 as for rewards, why not just give finality validators <1 % of the block reward? 03:31:23 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 03:31:45 but yeah 03:31:50 you have to have a seperate wallet for mining 03:32:05 just in case you don't accidentally burn your own funds in an accident 03:32:11 Fwiw, PoS is not without its attacks, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07713 03:33:18 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 03:33:26 Evolver: this is something that can be solved with BGPsec 03:33:38 but like, hijacking IP prefixes sounds easy on paper 03:33:48 but in reality, it'll probably just DDoS yourself instead 03:34:01 see: malaysia telecom's "accidental" hijacking of facebook's ASN 03:36:47 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 03:37:28 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 03:37:30 like in the github issue, "assigning anyone who mines a block 1 stake" 03:38:12 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 03:38:13 ther, which allows us more time to respond to an attack. 03:39:13 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 03:39:52 how would one attack the finality layer other than DDoSing the validator nodes? 03:40:25 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 03:40:46 ah 03:40:53 nopeeee: that makes sense 03:41:05 yeah it seems like a bad idea 03:42:31 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 03:43:12 wait 03:43:16 i actually thought of a countermeasure 03:43:23 since all the validators must disclose their view key 03:43:29 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 03:43:36 and pools must distribute the rewards to its miners 03:43:46 Decred created this: https://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. 03:43:54 then basically, tie the tokens to monero mined 03:44:04 if they get sent to someone else, deduct a token 03:44:14 (the person who gets the monero will not have the token) 03:45:00 this would punish centralized pools, because they have to send the rewards out somehow 03:45:20 while letting the honest miners stockpile the tokens and withdraw to their main wallet without issues 03:45:59 (other than no tokens) 03:46:57 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 03:46:59 a side-effect would be too many validators (thus, network latency + congestion) 03:47:25 Cindy, I guess that could work. However, I'm still uncertain about how such an implementation would actually be carried out 03:47:44 so basically 1 block == 1 stake, but sending out monero to some other wallet will deduct / amount of stakes 03:50:24 nopeeee: well, the wallets are assumed to be completely dedicated to the mining/validation (due to the exposed view key) 03:51:53 so it would probably involve some complicated network consenus? 03:53:39 it would be the same as regular PoS but you do not count monero obtained from other means, just mining 04:10:39 Proof of pow 🙃 04:11:32