00:01:13 using gupaxx with local node, I just need to work out how to "point", I'm not to good on that, I will work it out later, shouldn't be to hard, I will set up another old laptop with a full node and an open port, it's closed at the moment I'm using Mulllvad 00:06:53 this section in your config.json for xmrrig should look something like this 00:06:53 ``` 00:06:55 "pools": [ 00:06:57 { 00:06:59 "algo": "rx/0", 00:07:01 "coin": "Monero", 00:07:03 "url": "192.168.1.4:3333", 00:07:05 ``` 00:07:07 when p2pool node is configured something like 00:07:09 ``` 00:07:11 p2pool --stratum 192.168.1.4:3333 ... 00:09:20 if p2pool and monerod run on the same host it could be smth like 00:09:21 ``` 00:09:23 p2pool --stratum 192.168.1.4:3333 --host 127.0.0.1 --zmq-port 18038 --rpc-port 18081 ... 00:09:25 ``` 00:09:27 also depending on your monerod config 00:09:49 if p2pool and monerod run on the same host it could be smth like 00:09:51 ``` 00:09:53 p2pool --stratum 192.168.1.4:3333 --host 127.0.0.1 --zmq-port 18083 --rpc-port 18081 ... 00:09:55 ``` 00:09:57 also depending on your monerod config 00:13:15 OK thanks, i will have go at it later, will keep the hash going until Pubic calms down 😅 00:28:19 Bitcoin is getting dumped due to the continuing attack on Monero 😂 00:32:12 All youtubers are high on BTC pump so it have to dump, the question is how much 00:32:34 (they in fact try to shill it so people fill them) 00:32:40 as always lol 00:33:44 allegedly because of Gate exchange didn't increase the confirmations limit 02:25:39 what is better between retoswap and http://67w4f46nfrfigohl4ypgpo7cjnftl57rorha3zmn4xkll5jvmi6mi4qd.onion/ please? 02:37:13 monerica isn't exchange 06:10:58 Revuo Monero Issue 246: August 17 - 26, 2025. https://www.revuo-xmr.com/weekly/issue-246/ 07:25:15 qubic is now mining less than 50/100 blocks, it's still finding a lot of blocks .. I discovered sporestack yesterday (http://spore64i5sofqlfz5gq2ju4msgzojjwifls7rok2cti624zyq3fcelad.onion/) and used it to rent some dedi to at leats add a few KH's to the network. 07:26:08 Which made me wonder, how can MRR be so "cheap" for megahash size of mining rigs in comparison to renting a normal dedicated server 08:02:57 🤖 10:18:14 Perhaps it's cheating? Not sure how those rentals work, do you just put your address? Or does it give access to run xmrig as you please? 10:53:13 It doesn't give access to the machines 10:53:22 So it could be cheating , not sure 10:55:24 Hmm, in which case, unless you run it for longer and do statistics you can just be "unlucky" 11:08:20 Does anyone know if there are wallets that are supporting LWS ? I know mymonero and edge, but I was hoping for some others (and I don’t use them) 11:16:00 Cake or monerujo should add lws support 11:16:17 Diego Salazar: maybe stack can do it? 11:27:13 MRR gives a score indicating roughly how accurate the stated HR is which is based on feedback, now they just need to add a score on how accurate that feedback is 11:28:25 as to MRR being cheaper than dedicated servers, they just need to make more money renting their rigs than mining with them 11:47:02 I'm not sure of any others, but the Monero.com wallet, while doesn't have LWS, does support background synchronization, which keeps you pretty close to up to date with the blockchain. 11:47:15 So while it's not a light wallet, you also don't end up opening it and needing to synchronize 15,000 blocks. 11:51:47 It would be awesome if they add LWS through onion with username and password. I would love to donate if that is the case. 11:52:40 I know, it ok. But sometime annoying bc so slow. Do you know that the dedicated monero node has inbuild LWS service. Pretty handy 11:54:29 How easy is it to install lws on windows or macOS ? 12:38:52 hi guys, need to swap >500k usdt for xmr, need help where to do it? any particular dex or swap that wont lock funds/ 12:49:15 dmed you 12:50:33 in the future there will be serai, right now there is retoswap.com but the liquidity is not there yet 13:08:36 The adversary managed to get 32% of the last 1,000 Monero blocks. 13:09:15 So while they still don't have 51%, they are still able to cause problems in very short bursts. 13:15:48 howdy 13:19:03 yo happy to see you here 13:20:41 I heard this is where the cool kids are 13:41:16 And it's just annoying overall 13:44:07 Although I see a lot of people joining in with all what they have to add extra hashpower here and there, which is heartwarming, it seems that the community isn't able to mobilize truly big numbers of hashpower to put qubic in its place. 13:44:27 I am not blaming anyone, I am as guilty of it as the next man 😅 13:45:04 Then again it's hard to measure how much hashpower was added in defense of the network 13:46:27 15:09:15 So while they still don't have 51%, they are still able to cause problems in very short bursts. 13:46:45 they do have the ability to get over 51%, but haven't done so 13:46:58 they have done it over bursts they can sustain 13:47:07 but they only bring these up to make long reorgs 13:48:11 ;) 13:50:45 It seems last 6 months overall hashrate increased a little over 1GH/s 14:02:16 hashrate was at its peak when monero increased in price 14:02:51 it remember seeing almost 6GH/s when xmr was at almost 320€ 14:03:04 yes 14:03:09 when xmr price up 14:03:11 hashrate up 14:03:12 Yeah peak seems to have been around may 14:03:15 qubic started the attack when monero fell in price 14:03:26 last 3 motnhs relatively flat 14:03:47 hmm, why did it fall then? if not due to the attack 14:04:21 some attacker sold tons of XMR iirc 14:04:27 scammer i think 14:05:53 if you wanna support monero from qubic & show some love... just mine at my pool: tallhatdoug.com, that'd be awesome 14:06:01 p2pool's another solid way to support Monero! 14:07:00 yeah it was that story about the scammer dude in UK that tried to launder 300 million BTC through xmr 14:07:31 why does kuno need a X contact 14:07:56 "oh if you don't put in your twitter, then it won't be verified right away blah blah blah" 14:08:44 Pretty frontend, good job 14:09:58 i don't get why kuno needs a twitter contact if you want it to be more "convenient" 14:10:42 from what i understood, a pool has no benefit when compared to p2pool, if so, why doesn't everyone just jump to p2pool? 14:11:15 a centralized pool has a much simpler setup 14:11:28 but for the miner it's the same, no? 14:11:29 is't just running xmrig binary , and that's it 14:11:41 you have to host p2pool somewhere 14:11:47 no, if you do p2pool you need to figure out p2pool :p 14:11:53 it's not that hard, but it's something extra 14:11:56 i don't host it on the same machine as xmrig, because of RAM requirements 14:12:05 you can use someone else node, tho it's not ideal 14:12:16 also some mining pools offer more algo's and other nonsense :p 14:12:31 using some other monero node with p2pool is like 14:12:35 some have modified xmrig binaries for alledgedly better returns 14:12:36 better than a centralized pool 14:12:49 eddie: give source code >:( 14:14:00 als, with tari pools do merge mining for you so you don't have to bother with that too 14:14:13 could p2pool be attacked with a "51% attack"? (and thus indirectly attacking monero) 14:14:30 p2pool can do merge mining 14:14:45 or in the unlikely scenario of having 100% of blocks by p2pool it would be fine? 14:15:14 To the best of my understanding, even if P2 pool had 100% of blocks, it would be fine. 14:16:07 If true, that would actually be a very good thing, because then there would be no way anybody could 51% attack the network. 14:17:13 what is actually the api miningpoolstats queries to get pool data? 14:17:33 yes 14:17:48 the API that asks the pool for its hashrate 14:17:58 that can be easily faked 14:18:06 can you give an example? 14:18:51 i was just wondering if p2pool could be attacked and thus monero could be attacked, imagine someone manages to control majority of p2pool hashrate, wouldn't that mean they can "fabricate" blocks? 14:20:31 Hmmmmm. I am not sure 14:28:09 dude, let me break it down for ya. if some big time miner was trying to pull a fast one, they'd have to command 51%+ of the overall hash rate first. but even then, their power wouldn't grow by joining p2pool since everyone's still mining to their own node or remote node. this means that p2pool can only maintain the existing distribution of hashrate, not add to centralization. if s 14:28:09 omeone controls majority of p2pool's hashrate, they can still attack the 51% network. ideally p2pool has tens of thousands of independent miners 14:30:44 If anyone could amass that much power and pull a fast one, it'd be Doug Dimmadome, owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome. 14:31:10 yessir! 14:34:16 so cubic is basically taking the fact that people are mining there already and adding more of their own power. 14:34:17 by themselves they couldn't reach any meaninful hasharete 14:35:42 Exactly. They reward miners who switch to them with their shitcoin. If they had to actually get all the hashrate themselves to attack the network straight out, they would not be able to. 14:36:03 I ain't no expert, but I'm gonna trust datahoarder & sech1 to lay it all out in their upcoming blog post. they're the ones who know the ins and outs of qubic mining 14:36:37 I am very much looking forward to that. 14:41:48 What do the Monero developers have to say about the 9 block reorgs? 14:42:02 never a dull moment with monero 14:43:11 Aint that the truth 14:46:04 Evolver -> it's pretty unsettling... with Qubic being able to perform 10+ block reorgs (they chose to limit it at 9 blocks) and orphaning 7.64% of the last 720 blocks. developers are rushing to apply a bandaid fix with DNS checkpoints, so let's hope they get it sorted soon 14:47:20 I think they will. Even with all this mess going on, it still serves its purpose as a digital currency. 14:47:21 If you order something physical, you're going to get a lot of confirmations before the thing is ever shipped out anyway. 14:47:46 All this crap mainly hurts latency-sensitive applications, such as exchanges and maybe the gift card providers, although even they could just up their confirmations. 14:47:52 tallhatdoug: Please do share & link more about this DNS checkpoint fix. 14:48:08 hortwavesurfer2009: You can't order shit from it if it's price crashes. 14:48:14 *short 14:48:24 *its 14:48:28 I believe it impacted exchanges such as Gate, where just 10 confirmations were required 14:49:33 I was able to get servers with a little delay yesterday during them having 60/100 blocks 14:50:04 DNS Checkpointing has been in the code at least since I started using it in 2022. 14:50:05 However, it wasn't tested to defeat normal reorganization attempts like this. It was tested to fix one time consensus issues if there was a problem. 14:50:07 https://docs.getmonero.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/ 14:50:11 tallhatdoug: Will the fix release get posted here: https://www.getmonero.org/blog/ 14:50:44 DNS checkpoints are an opt-in feature currently. 14:51:26 It wasnt tested at all* LOL 14:51:27 hahahaha 14:51:54 sorry, but how will DNS checkpoints help the network here? And is there a link explaining it? 14:52:00 E​volver -> yes. as shortwavesurfer2009 said, DNS checkpoints have been an optional feature in Monero nodes already implemented, but with this bandaid update they will become opt out. developers are currently doing tests for the change in the #monero-research-lab:monero.social 14:52:28 https://docs.getmonero.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/ 14:52:34 sorry #monero-research-lounge:monero.social not lab 14:52:54 ☝️ 14:54:50 The problem, and the reason that it was opt-out before, is because by doing so, it is centralizing to whoever controls the Monero pulse infrastructure, which is the core development team. If you trust them, that's great. If you don't trust them, then that's not great. And that's why it was an opt-in feature only. 14:54:52 The DNS checkpoints act as a low effort trailing finality layer 14:55:01 Look at Bitcoin core versus Bitcoin knots. Bitcoin knots no longer trusts the core development team. 14:55:27 they were opt-in* before, because they are untested and cause more harm than good in current form 14:56:34 Good to know. So now they are doing more rigorous tests on the damn thing. 14:57:21 I am assuming the devs will make it an opt-out feature. 14:58:28 Yeah, there's a command you can issue when starting your node called disable DNS checkpoints 14:59:56 By default, currently to my understanding it warns the user if something is detected incorrectly, but doesn't do anything except warn the user. You can set in FORCE DNS Checkpointing, and that will force you to use what they think is the proper chain, or you can disable DNS Checkpointing entirely. 15:00:39 Enforce* 15:09:03 ofrnxmr: By how many blocks might it trail? And what's keeping the devs' blocks from not moving forward on a bad chain? 15:09:18 2-3 15:09:56 the main thing is to disallow >10 block reorgs 15:11:36 hooray! 15:11:40 :D 15:12:47 Will it be up to the individual node operators for now whether they want to activate this change? 15:12:48 what is stopping the registrar's from modifying the checkpoint though 15:13:01 does monero's DNS checkpoint domain have DNSSEC? 15:16:06 i hope the node won't be querying over unencrypted DNS 15:17:15 https://docs.getmonero.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/ 15:17:20 yes, all do DNSSEC 15:17:27 and multiple domains all have to agree 15:17:34 this system already existed 15:17:56 the work now is to test it with shorter cadence for having rolling checkpoint 15:19:52 what is stopping ISPs from blackholing any responses to a DNS request containing moneropulse 15:20:05 if this is using unencrypted DNS 15:23:01 I guess which DNS server is used would individually be up to the node... 15:23:30 if this is using unencrypted DNS, the choice of server would not matter at all 15:23:45 ISPs could blackhole any requests containing moneropulse on any UDP packets on port 53 15:25:05 Maybe forcing DNS over HTTPS using a custom resolver could be better? 15:25:25 If not now, then next time. 15:29:57 Still also using DNSSEC, of course. 15:31:12 Cindy: the DNS is using the system dns 15:31:25 if system or your local router is using DoH, that will be used 15:31:25 i see 15:31:59 Ten years ago, DoH wasn't invented or popular 15:32:00 the critical users here are, exchanges, and monero pools and anyone who mines 15:32:22 this will work well with anonymized DNSCrypt 15:32:35 as long as the critical consensus or monetary entities follow the right chain, that will work well 15:32:47 Cindy: nothing is being changed besides using the already existing method 15:32:53 you can take a look at it or enable it today 15:32:58 --enforce-dns-checkpoints 15:33:37 further changes on it or long term plans that change how monero works would come later on. this is a bandaid measure that can work semi-quick with minor changes 15:34:12 yeah i know 15:34:19 which is good 15:34:42 What's keeping the Pulse nodes from moving forward with a bad chain... 15:34:57 the checkpoints are chosen by the core dev team 15:35:07 it's listed in the monero pulse page what could happen, Evolver 15:35:29 if you are curious about how monero itself makes DNS requests or checkpoints work, see https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/master/src/common/dns_utils.cpp and https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/master/src/checkpoints/checkpoints.cpp respectively 15:35:46 these also include the "release" checkpoints 15:36:43 how does the core dev team determine what is the good fork 15:37:24 they place the checkpoints regularly, say, tip -2 blocks 15:37:42 that means no fork can be longer than the uncheckpointed area 15:38:03 these are done before reorgs happen 15:38:16 making long 10+ reorgs unattainable 15:38:42 if they happen, nodes enforcing checkpoints will refuse these and over time build on what was selected 15:39:14 17:36:43 how does the core dev team determine what is the good fork 15:39:29 this is currently being tested as well across the dev/lab channels 15:39:38 what cadence/delay works best 15:39:51 if you are curious you can sync up to testnet and see the reorgs they are doing 15:40:06 so they're simulating qubic? 15:40:22 they are simulating altchains https://testnetnode4.moneroconsensus.info/ 15:40:27 not explicitly qubic 15:40:36 they are testing longer, and shorter reorgs 15:40:49 and see how different nodes pick them with and without checkpoints enabled 15:40:54 Is there any risk of Pulse retracting its choice of what's selected, switching to a new incompatible selection? 15:41:00 different node https://testnetnode3.moneroconsensus.info/ 15:41:10 i see 15:41:17 that's a pretty long reorg chain 15:41:31 Evolver: all people would have to agree on doing that, as listed on https://docs.getmonero.org/infrastructure/monero-pulse/#moneropulse-as-attack-vector 15:41:51 yeah, they are testing more cases than usual, Cindy 15:43:46 there's a side track of expanding that page to include this new usecase, expanding the list of checkpoint endpoints to have more people involved, etc. 15:44:10 right now they are focusing on it being technically feasible and stable 15:45:38 i can't host a monero node, i only have HDDs!! 15:45:54 let's hope that a onion monero node that has DNS checkpointing exists 15:48:51 DataHoarder: but if adding too many people, how will they develop their own consensus? And can the DNS response return a list of checkpoints that don't have internal consensus, so what happens then? 15:49:05 only checkpoints that agree are used 15:50:06 well, that's the trick isn't it? I'm not who decides to add more or less, but it has been considered and tabled for future(?) discussion in the rooms 15:50:32 I am retelling what I remember from the MRL discussions these past few weeks, which have logs as well available :) 15:52:48 !tip Cindy an SSD and moar ram 15:57:44 I noticed at https://moneroconsensus.info/ in its 6h chart that it had gone to 55% for Unknown pool. 16:06:52 DataHoarder: any expected timeline for this change? a week? 16:07:30 I guess you won't know. Sorry. 16:07:31 they are still actively testing on testnet, possibly to shorten release timeline for this 16:10:38 worse would be rushing then asking for users to enable something that doesn't work well or actively harms monero more than helps, so yeah. better be sure 16:10:51 nioc: :o 16:11:01 thx <3 16:11:37 best thing about IRC is that you can have a custom CTCP that sends your monero address 16:11:43 tbh, running Monero on an HDD is perfectly fine. just have a lot, a lot of ram! 16:11:52 then it will all get cached :) 16:13:08 imagine IRC aliases in monero wallet lol 16:13:36 type someone's nick in monero, and it'll connect to libera and send them a CTCP request 16:14:03 DataHoarder: well, it was making my system super slow 16:14:22 it's more like a joke, basically your RAM would just be the "SSD" 16:14:32 ahhhh 16:14:46 so you're saying, making a ramdisk on the extra ram :P 16:15:16 then it would be like qubic's crappy node program 16:32:41 Binaries for v0.18.4.2 are now available at https://www.getmonero.org 16:33:39 ty bF 18:35:55 Yes, thank you binaryFate 18:36:10 are subaddesses safe? 18:36:47 like, are they not gonna be linked somehow to the main address? 18:37:26 For more exposure, I'm re-posting in this room. This is why you should download v0.18.4.2: https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/10059 18:37:32 of course i've heard of the janus attack 18:39:20 @Cindy_: without an active Janus attack, there isn't a way for people to link subaddresses together or main addresses to subaddresses unless they have a quantum computer that works to break Ed25519's discrete log problem 18:40:09 So currently known passive attacks for linking Monero addresess with current technology: none 18:40:30 also arch linux still has 0.18.4.0 18:40:35 and their issues say "severity: low" 18:40:43 i should bug them to update quickly with this issue :P 18:41:01 That would be great 19:21:47 bumped to 8.4.2 and i've never seen this one before. Sync data returned a new top block candidate: 3486453 -> 3404857 [Your node is 81596 blocks (3.7 months) ahead] 19:23:17 v0.18.4.2* 19:34:37 baz: i saw this before, but it happens rarely 19:34:50 if this prints more frequently now it might be a bug or a side effect of one of the changes we had 19:37:01 i'll watch out for it, i'm doing another update now and i'll see if it shows the same 19:42:23 I installed the update yesterday when I made the Alpine package, I did not get that issue