<k​mno4:catgirl.cloud> im.fluffychat://chat/#monero:monero.social

<a​shven:matrix.org> What is happening 😊

<a​shven:matrix.org> I hear a lot of fud that xmr would allocate 2% to he POS for finality

<a​shven:matrix.org> If this is true this is the worst thing i have ever heard

<a​shven:matrix.org> Anyone could clear this up?

<e​longated:matrix.org> Why ?

<e​longated:matrix.org> Pos still hasn’t even been researched

<a​shven:matrix.org> PoS have turned into phobia after ETH ofac compliance processing. It let banks and money printer have a stake on a lot of things

<a​shven:matrix.org> I dont even remotely support any research into any pos

<e​longated:matrix.org> You can’t differentiate between xmr payments

<e​longated:matrix.org> No issue, you can keep mining

<a​shven:matrix.org> Thats not the problem exactly how can we be absolutely sure that this cannot be used as an attack vector socially or technically

ashven: it's finality

<e​longated:matrix.org> You can come and fight when it has been proposed , it’s not even researched yet

aka. only a layer to validate PoW blocks

^^

<a​shven:matrix.org> Any thoughts has been put on the alternative too?

what altenrative

<a​shven:matrix.org> Anything used for strong settlement guarantees

<a​shven:matrix.org> DAG-based consensus

how would DAG solve the problem

<a​shven:matrix.org> deterministic or probabilistic finality it would make it just harder

<a​shven:matrix.org> Final settlement would need staking anyway but anything would Nakamoto consensus would be probabilistic

tbh i agree with ofrnxmr's proof of pow idea

<a​shven:matrix.org> You can only have strong final settlement guarantee at Nakamoto consensus PoW. Either you make Acyclic Graph or increase the hashrate incentive miner

who's this Nakamoto guy?

PoS but the stakes are tied to a wallet's coinbase transactions

so much shit named after him wtf

or in other terms like

<a​shven:matrix.org> Tailstorm etc only make it harder but the ultimate solution is to increase the hashrate incentive for p2pool

1 block = 1 stake

PoS = Piece of Shit

<3

this gets rid of rich people and shit

but also, if you send someone your mined monero, it is deducted from your stakes

and becomes unstakable

(by the other person who receives it)

basically you earn stakes by holding onto the mined monero rewards, which only independent miners can really do, while centralized pools have to give it away to their miners or sell it for some shitcoin

<a​shven:matrix.org> Nakamoto consensus is the PoW rule where the valid chain is the one with the most accumulated work, and nodes extend it. The finality is probabilistic the deeper it get the less likely it has reorg or double spend

I think Harmony was talking about doing something similar

nakamoto consenus sounds absolutely useless

intersting concept backup up PoS with PoW

an attacker can shove an extremely long chain

that just might make it work in the real world

hmm

once they are done making up one

yeah too much room for fuckups

neglect one piece of code and lose hundreds of millions possibly

it's happened

there should be one massive PoW chain that everything is build or based on

ashven: what do you think of the PoS+PoW concept i just mentioned

not 100,000 different projects lol but whatever

it doesn't benefit rich people, it doesn't benefit pools

it just benefits miners

imagine if all that went into developing one thing together

so we just started staking only coinbases and now Q owns the PoS part

Q literally burns monero for qubic

I thought they burned VC for that

<a​shven:matrix.org> I think we should tie the incentive to p2pool for honest miners to grow. More incentive more money for p2pool miners = less attack surface

yes, it can be tied to p2pool

my first post was paraphrasing ofrn :D

nioc: if what they're saying is true, they would be burning monero for qubic

and not anything else, i think the bonus money comes from CFB's wallet or VC

<a​shven:matrix.org> With enough research we can increase the probability of them having better reward rather than PoS this would mean messing with the randomX algorithm to favor mining node and p2pool scheme

Is really monero going to affected??  in this current situation

yes, it's going to get straonger

also stronger

not affected ??

yes it will be which will make it stronger

<a​shven:matrix.org> Our only solution is not to play their game we have stronger weapons:) to fork them off forever just like we did to asic

as it adapts

okay

you cannot fork them off forever

<a​shven:matrix.org> Lol why not

well, as soon as they jump on the new chain, it'll happen again :P

unless you have an actual solution

<a​shven:matrix.org> We can make the randomX favour p2pools and more money for miners on p2pool means less attack surface for 51% attack

how

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its based on human incentives

Are miners leaving supportxmr?

that sounds like a permissioned system

<a​shven:matrix.org> It you get to p2pool and get 1 xmr

<a​shven:matrix.org> While you get 0.1 xmr mining on centralized pool which one would you choose?

Q is giving 1.5xmr

sorry, I will stop now

<a​shven:matrix.org> P2pool is premisionless anyone can run a new p2pool node :) and make it public

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> make it public?

but you're saying that monero should be hard forked so that the network consenus favors people mining via p2pool

GN Cindy

which sounds like a network-level permissioned blockchain

night nioc!!

<a​shven:matrix.org> Accessible for other miners to point their miners on

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its port which port do you open

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> The payouts go to the address entered in p2pool

<a​shven:matrix.org> We doing it all the time with mining farms

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> You want people to donate hashes to you, is that it?

so your idea is like

if someone is solo-mining (not via p2pool)

we should reject their block regardless if it's valid

i doubt we can give specific rewards depending on the miner so like

that's the closest i can think

<a​shven:matrix.org> Maybe i missed the right wording i mean people can open up new p2pool all the time mining farms can rag up their machine

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I think requiring a special pool software is crazy

<a​shven:matrix.org> Not other indvisuals i mean people who share the same address for operations

<a​shven:matrix.org> We need to incentivize p2pool mining we haven’t even done so

<a​shven:matrix.org> Before thinking of any pos!!

on a network-level?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> merge mine tari with it

<a​shven:matrix.org> Exactly

<a​shven:matrix.org> Nope Monero independent

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> @cindy, right? Thats crazy

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> p2pool mines tari by default

i mean

<a​shven:matrix.org> I know which haven’t done so well for my mining farm

i literally doubt you can give seperate block rewards on some conditions

that would require some new fields added to the block headers

<a​shven:matrix.org> The random X should favour p2pool as part of its parameter

<a​shven:matrix.org> This is 10 times better than pos

no, the PoW algorithm literally does not care about how it's getting its challenges

you can only do it in a network-level

<a​shven:matrix.org> Or any other alternative that give p2pool incentive is welcome

this would require a hardfork with new network consenus

not a change to RandomX

not only that, it would create a permissioned environment

<a​shven:matrix.org> Hardfork > PoS

<a​shven:matrix.org> Better

i mean

you have to hard fork to add PoS to

too*

so it's literally either way

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> P2pool isnt some sort on panacea

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I can run a centralized pool on top of my own p2pool

<a​shven:matrix.org> P2pool is permsionless !

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Qubic can creare their own p2pool, today.

<a​shven:matrix.org> How?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> there are already pools mining on p2pool

<a​shven:matrix.org> So you saying if the all of network are p2pool the 51% attack division happens inside the p2pool?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> I can run a private p2pool and 51% rhe network with it, yes

<a​shven:matrix.org> Assume 100% monero hash power is all p2pool just for illustration

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Yes

<a​shven:matrix.org> Construction of block template possible on p2pool? Not the default?

P2pool is permissionless

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Your node decides. If i want to selfish mine empty blocks on my personal p2pool, yes, i can

i'm talking about forcing all miners to mine via p2pool

P2pool is permissionless, but monero will be permissioned

<a​shven:matrix.org> Wouldn’t matter according to @orfnai

anyone who mines outside of p2pool will have their block rejecte

rejected*

you can try

But why?

<a​shven:matrix.org> So the question now how do you incentivize honest mining

<k​mno4:catgirl.cloud> if cubic create their own p2pool, they can't use p2pool to re-org monero chain, am i right?

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Cindy, even if you bammed solomining, and only allowed p2pool.. i could run a pool on my p2pool, or i could solomine from my p2pool

And more correctly, why would you want to permission the XMR chain, because man, that's a great way to end up with nodes that block txns.

Snipa: i'm talking about what ashven is talking about :P

AH.

lol

P2Pool gives me nightmares still from Tari.

<a​shven:matrix.org> I think if we managed to incentivize honest mining behavior via reward it would be the way to protect the network

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Wrong. They cam

<a​shven:matrix.org> As a precaution we can have checkpoint similar to BCH

<a​shven:matrix.org> In BCH, a checkpoint is a hard coded block hash at a certain height built into node software to prevent deep chain reorganizations beyond that point.

<a​shven:matrix.org> In BCH, a checkpoint is a hard coded block hash at a certain height built into node software to prevent deep chain reorganizations beyond that point mainly for security

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> boog and i Are pro-this idea

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> its easy to implement

<a​shven:matrix.org> Yeah me too

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Mostly to attempt to prevent reorgs of unlocked txs

<a​shven:matrix.org> One issue at the time

what happens if someone reorganizes from that point

<a​shven:matrix.org> Perfect

do the nodes halt

<a​shven:matrix.org> He can’t basically its not allowed

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> And you spent the tx already? The tx can be invalidated

ah

i agree with this idea too

but also ofrnxmr's popow idea

<a​shven:matrix.org> Bitcoin cash people did it in case they got 51% attacked from btc

<a​shven:matrix.org> But never happened

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Yeah. Bch's is much deeper though, at default 10 blocks (100mins). Ours would be 10 blocks (20mins) to coincide with the 10 block lock.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> This is obv still proposal stage. Some ppl dont like the ideas

<e​longated:matrix.org> Xmr txs uses decoys, if you reorg deep enough you can invalidate txs

<a​shven:matrix.org> I am sure it has more consensus than POS lol

<k​mno4:catgirl.cloud> a rolling 10-block window, sounds very easy

<e​longated:matrix.org> Yes it can be a quick fix but not a permanent one

it just buys us time :P

<a​shven:matrix.org> You cant find the final solution in a rush i would agree

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> yeah, it doesnt protect against a 51%, not empty blocks, but it does prevent invalidating your unlocked outputs

<a​shven:matrix.org> But it would give is time to think about the alternatives

<a​shven:matrix.org> But it would give us time to think about the alternatives

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Right now, i can accept a transfer, fhen spend it, then have my spend invalidated

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> But only with a 10+ deep reorg. Less than 10, i cant spend (still locked), _and_ other txs wont use me as a decoy until im unlocked

<a​shven:matrix.org> This could be a proposal any one wana be championing this proposal ?

if we could actually design it into the network

and also some proof of concept code with a test fork of monero

<a​shven:matrix.org> The design has no issue basically

<a​shven:matrix.org> The proof of concept wouldn’t be straightforward though like BCH anyone can correct me?

yeah

and i don't think it would require a hard-fork

would it?

<a​shven:matrix.org> I am not very familiar the Monero Code basically but i can tell :)

<a​shven:matrix.org> Nope it would basically hard fork is not an issue. If everyone aboard

<a​shven:matrix.org> If you have two options. HF vs SF

<a​shven:matrix.org> Hardfork usually better because its the cleanest way to implement the code

<a​shven:matrix.org> Softfork are ugliest from code perspective especially if you need to do something around

<a​shven:matrix.org> Even softfork have a lot of problems if there is a lot of disagreement new versions would be blind old version and vise versa

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its just an illusion that everything is intact

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Hard forks arent pretty. I understamd what youre trying to say

<a​shven:matrix.org> Bitcoin Core misconceptions that hard fork is bad is funny

vengeful me wants PoS because it means i can slash people's funds :P

<a​shven:matrix.org> Not pretty but its better to implement things the right way without going around things

or i guess invalidate their outputs

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> its a way to _force_ things on people, sure

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> like force ppl to use 16 decoys instead of 11

<a​shven:matrix.org> Not if everyone onboard you cant do hard fork without consensus just like soft fork

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> But getting ppl to agree to inflate rx size for a marginal increase in privacy and much larger tx fees? Not without some level of pushback

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> We can, and we do

<a​shven:matrix.org> Thats what i am saying so hard fork is not bad or enforcing anything

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Randomx wasnt universally accepted, people liked their gpus. Some wanted asics

ashven: of course, everyone will have to update their monero at some point

otherwise they'd still be relying on the old consensus

their monero client*

What is qpools.qubicdisciple.info and is it relevant to Monero?

ofrnxmr: there's still people thinking we should relax the algorithm for ASICs lol

<a​shven:matrix.org> SegWit didn’t updated for years :) until many people got out that the remaining were minorities or upgraded but i get what you mean

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> yeah. Lol.

imagine that future with monero lol

spending 12 years reverse engineering each transistor in an ASIC to figure out if there are any backdoors

Backdoors? Either it mines or it doesn't.

Mined credits are sent to some address, aren't they...

<a​shven:matrix.org> I am neutral idk what would be the right thing to do if you think about it 1 google or Microsoft data center could swallow the whole network by government favour or renting

Evolver: the ASIC could have a fuse inside that, with a crafted challenge, could kill itself

as a backdoor

for example

so, any CPU could

<a​shven:matrix.org> I am neutral idk what would be the right thing to do if you think about it 1 google or Microsoft data center could swallow the whole network by government favour or renting. You cant do this by ASIC but thats another topic

Cindy: I don't think the ASIC manufacturer would want to go out of business.

<a​shven:matrix.org> Nah

(I am not favoring ASICs at all for mining.)

lol to bitmain, making a new ASIC is a drop in the bucket for them

they have a dedicated department, connections to fabs

Who will buy from them if they kill

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Bitmain asic mined monero @90% domination "in secret" (nobody knew the asics existed)

<a​shven:matrix.org> You could have Risc V CPU all day on rigs similar way but they wont knowing that people would fork

Evolver: they still will

because you'll be one of the only ASIC manufacturers

making your own ASIC costs like 25 million dollars or even way more than that

Monitor your adverary: reddit.com/r/Qubic

plus factoring in R&D, testing, fabs, etc.

*adversary

<a​shven:matrix.org> You know manufacturer can build thousands of miner farms via risc v cpu? Only used for mining?

only for it to be garbage compared to much more optimized intel or AMD CPUs

<a​shven:matrix.org> 😅i dont think you understand what risc v is

RandomX relies on the fact that ASIC manufacturers cannot actually compete with CPU manufacturers :P

yes i know what it is

i'm saying ASIC manufacturers do not have the necessary resources to outperform CPU manufacturers' CPUs

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its more profitable than amd

<e​longated:matrix.org> And you still are ok with just pow

<a​shven:matrix.org> Less power

<e​longated:matrix.org> And you are still ok with just pow

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its best of what we human have today for decentralized mining

bitmain tried to make a randomX "asic" like that

actually a rig but whatever

<a​shven:matrix.org> Totally agree 100%

they couldn't compete with CPU manufacturers with much more resources to optimize their CPUs

<e​longated:matrix.org> It’s not decentralised with botnets

<a​shven:matrix.org> I disagree incentivize is all what matter miners are incentivized to keep the chain working or the will lose millions

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> way more decentralized than most PoW coins

<a​shven:matrix.org> In PoS lol they can fork everything with their money printing

<a​shven:matrix.org> Do what ever they want

PoS relies on the fact that they probably wouldn't like to ruin the value of all the coins they got

<a​shven:matrix.org> Look you cant beat state at pos network

<a​shven:matrix.org> But you can definitely do it in POW

<a​shven:matrix.org> Otherwise they would have brick

i don't believe in full PoS

<a​shven:matrix.org> Fork the network and they lose billions

but i do think there should be something like a hybrid between both

<e​longated:matrix.org> If they are not competitive in mining there is no incentive to mine

PoW should be more favored

but PoS should be used as a finality layer

in case a large attacker manages to attack the PoW layer

most of the rewards should be in PoW

<a​shven:matrix.org> Similar to cars and everything in life that’s why new machines comes every two years even home miners right now

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> if the state wants, they can also beat you in PoW

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> just make a government contract with Microsoft/Amazon (or other hosting providers) to mine your chain selfishly

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> I believe this is a bit more difficult to pull off as they're potentially subject to scrutiny from the congress or something

i mean yeah true

<e​longated:matrix.org> What ? So why did you fork away from CN ?

because ASICs?

<a​shven:matrix.org> No there is not enough miners they can buy :)

ashven: say that to qubic lol

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> but you can "government contract" Microsoft/Amazon/Cloudflare

<e​longated:matrix.org> Yah he said new machines, asic is a new machine more hashrate for same power

<e​longated:matrix.org> Same way how botnets do without any cost

allso neromonero1024 is right

<a​shven:matrix.org> And every single person can just run a heater and their home that earned them money :) it’s similar to how CPU work

if the state wanted, they could literally lease a ton of their equipment

just for mining monero

to take over it

<a​shven:matrix.org> Cpu are a lot as i said one data center from government can do more damage

<a​shven:matrix.org> There is no enough miners do this. It always evolve to stay efficient and competitive

it would be rather naive to rely on PoW alone at this point

<a​shven:matrix.org> Less incentive for miners to be dishonest or lose money with a rock machine

we need some sort of other security measure

<a​shven:matrix.org> Litecoin have done it for years with no problem

<a​shven:matrix.org> Not ShA256 and its ok with that

litecoin is literally taken over by ASICs

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Luke's finality layer proposal is interesting

<e​longated:matrix.org> I guess you guys don’t own any xmr and want to be sitting duck for 51% attack

lol i do

and tbh i do not care, i have faith

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> It's a tricky problem when you're talking about the state because it's not like the asic solution protects either

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> any solution to 51% attack will have to come after fcmp++ upgrade... devs r already busy with it already

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> so, we're forced to sitting duck anyway... unless something miraculous solution comes along that's extremely simple and easy to implement

the asic solution will actually ruin it

<e​longated:matrix.org> Not really it can come with fcmp++ fork

anyway i'm hoping for a PoS finality layer i guess

<e​longated:matrix.org> Nobody has proposed asic

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> agreed

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> however, fcmp++ fork is still several months away

<a​shven:matrix.org> Yes, there is no perfect solution only trades off that people are willing to accept

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> so, we're back to sitting duck

Why would a government bother with a 50% attack? just pass laws to debank exchanges who trade it, takeover mining pool domains, make hosting them illegal, make it illegal for individuals to hold the coin or trade it with jail time etc. Use trade barriers to compel other countries to do the same.

<e​longated:matrix.org> Mid-end 2026

<e​longated:matrix.org> We need patch

<a​shven:matrix.org> Currently checkpoints blocks is the logical thing to do

<n​eromonero1024:monero.social> something like moneropulse?

<a​shven:matrix.org> Then we have time to discuss things

<e​longated:matrix.org> Maybe, but dns poisoning is normal

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its been tested for years in bitcoin cash

<a​shven:matrix.org> Its proven to be effective

<a​shven:matrix.org> We just need proof of concept

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> The only one I see as plausible would be to force whitelists and blacklists on the majority of miners with Asics

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Obviously this doesn't work with Monero, so I guess the only reason they'd do it is to break it

<e​longated:matrix.org> Any paper ?

<k​mno4:catgirl.cloud> actually, most of these are what China has done. getmonero.org is even banned there

dr_douchebag: that makes no sense

<e​longated:matrix.org> There are no asics

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Yes I know, there used to be

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Bitmain mined with a secret ASIC for a while

<e​longated:matrix.org> Last decade

<e​longated:matrix.org> And has been shorting it since then as a revengeful ex

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Yeah right up until randomx in like 2020

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Yeah probably

<e​longated:matrix.org> 2019

<d​r_douchebag:matrix.org> Nov 30 2019 if I recall

<a​shven:matrix.org> This release includes the following features and fixes:

<a​shven:matrix.org> Add the finalized block concept. Finalized blocks cannot be reorged, which protects the network against deep reorgs.

<a​shven:matrix.org> Add the -maxreorgdepth configuration to configure at what depth block are considered final. Default is 10. Use -1 to disable.

<a​shven:matrix.org> Introduce finalizeblock RPC to finalize a block at the will of the node operator.

<a​shven:matrix.org> Introduce a penalty to alternative chains based on the depth of the fork. This makes it harder for an attacker to do mid size reorg.

<a​shven:matrix.org> github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/master/src/checkpoints.h

<a​shven:matrix.org> github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/master/src/checkpoints.cpp

<a​shven:matrix.org> Review audit: blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-cash-abcs-rolling-10-block-checkpoints

<a​shven:matrix.org> The tech whitepaper : pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal…roof_KARAKOSTAS_DOA19022021_AFV.pdf

<a​shven:matrix.org> Here

<a​shven:matrix.org> pure.ed.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal…roof_KARAKOSTAS_DOA19022021_AFV.pdf

<e​longated:matrix.org> This looks good as a patch and can be implemented quickly

<a​shven:matrix.org> Exactly what i am saying

<k​mno4:catgirl.cloud> not in btc's concensus?

<a​shven:matrix.org> It was implemented by bitcoin cash

<a​shven:matrix.org> Btc don’t need it not sure if they ever did

<a​shven:matrix.org> Some BTC maxi whining about it :)

ok i managed to get some xmr on the reto!

How can the defecting miners not realize that pool concentration will devalue XMRUSD price, making the excess rewards of the concentrated pool more lossful than profiting...

<e​longated:matrix.org> They are botnets, they just want profit while it lasts

<f​reedom-quester:matrix.org> How long a time should you leave between doing a churn and making a purchase?

There looks to be an inconsistency in the attribution at miningpoolstats.stream/monero that is making zero sense to me. The donut chart says Qubic is 17.9% and Unknown is 12.5%. The table above it however says that Qubic is 46.7% * (100%-12.5%) == 40.9%.

There is a vast difference between 17.9% and 40.9%. Which is correct?

<f​reedom-quester:matrix.org> Got to go

<f​reddi99:matrix.org> are we fucked now? what happens if qubic keeps this up? can they print xmr out of thin air?

<b​asses:matrix.org> bruh

<f​reddi99:matrix.org> im dumb as a rock

<b​asses:matrix.org> getmonero.org/get-started/faq/#anchor-thin-air

<f​reddi99:matrix.org> ok i get this, but does this still apply if qubic gets 51%? what kind of shenanigans could they do?

<f​reddi99:matrix.org> can the community just "sit this one out"?

<t​orir:matrix.org> Evolver: The hashrate on that site is self-reported by the pools and cannot be trusted. The block distribution on the other hand comes from the blockchain and (to my knowledge) cannot be faked by the mining pools.

<f​reddi99:matrix.org> so the pie chart says the truth then?

<t​orir:matrix.org> Miners can claim blocks as their own or leave them unclaimed, but they can't manufacture fake blocks to falsely influence the chart.

How about empty blocks? Is that a thing?

<t​orir:matrix.org> It is possible that Qubic failed to claim a large portion of their blocks, which would account for the high percentage of unknown blocks.

<t​orir:matrix.org> Yes, Qubic has at times mined empty blocks. I don't know if they are doing that now. Check a block explorer, or moneroconsensus.info if it isn't down.

torir: Do you yourself trust the donut chart? MoneroConsensus is a bit too hard for me to use.

or it seems more low level

<t​orir:matrix.org> I don't have any reason to think the chart might be wrong.

they've stopped mining empty blocks and stopped selfish mining

from what I've seen

they are just being a normal honest pool rn

jpc4r: except for the alleged elevated advertised hashrate??

or are you saying their advertised hashrate is honest?

probably

haven't been paying that close attention anymore

why wouldnt it be

<t​orir:matrix.org> They've been less than honest in many of their claims previously.

jpc4r: because it doesn't line up with the donut chart at miningpoolstats.stream/monero

sure but their reported hash rate has been pretty honest from what I can tell

outside of what their websites report as the total share of pool %

the raw hash rate seems to add up to me

<t​orir:matrix.org> Previously when they were selfish mining many of the blocks they mined were never published, so it's been hard to calculate a proper hashrate without relying on their figure. If they continue honest mining now it should be straightforward to calculate the actual hashrate once we have a good sample size.

even during marathons they were getting roughly 35-37% of blocks

35-37% is like 2.5 gh/s?

rough estimate

on average at least, their hash rate is pretty variable

<t​orir:matrix.org> They also have this annoying habit of turning their mining on and off.

yeah

outside of marathons its every 30 mins

I could see a slight overestimation now that they are publicly reporting their hashrate again

but cant really say so 100% and I feel like they've been fairly accurate with what their hash rate has been previously

Did anyone make sense of their dashboard at qpools.qubicdisciple.info

in relation to Monero

what are you trying to figure out

Are there any apparent meaningful incompatibilities (inequalities) with what's reported by them at miningpoolstats.stream/monero or is the data compatible (equal)?

Is anything majorly inconsistent?