<321bob321> Nope

<321bob321> No state secrets here

<basses:matrix.org> it exists but not added here

<basses:matrix.org> wait, I don't think it exists they way you are saying it

<321bob321> Only assassin and state secrets use discord

Unfortunate. It used to exist on the Monero Discord Server back in the day. discord.gg/gXDsemASaR this one

there is no official server

let alone official bridge

our official ways of communication is matrix and IRC

<ofrnxmr> Cindy, didnt you test coinwallet?

coinwallet?

yeah i did

i used it and had a network debugger on

<ofrnxmr> Theyre in #monero-community whining

i will join

<ofrnxmr> Thanks. Lets see if they respond again

<houseandtiger:matrix.org> Why is monero on Kraken trading at a premium?

<helene:unredacted.org> @houseandtiger:matrix.org: how is anyone but kraken supposed to know?

<plaiwanone:matrix.org> GM

What is Monero?

Is this a new buttcoin?

it's not a buttcoin

it's a cryptocurrency with privacy on transactions by default

<anotherone:xmr.se> who is monreo

my long-lost second cousin

did you mean montero?

<anotherone:xmr.se> yes, montero, excuse me

a car

I need one of those

<helene:unredacted.org> marilyn monero?

<jojovial:matrix.org> I've read that for btc it is a good practice to sweep large number of UTXOs as fee minimization practice as number of UTXOs in a transaction increases the fee. From what I read, monero fees are a lot smaller. However, it seems higher number of inputs in a transaction should still drive the fee up. Average transaction fee chart [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/o_mYjLcKTWJvN0dY ]

<jojovial:matrix.org> And another question around that, but from privacy perspective - is there a difference between spending directly from the main address where mining payouts go, and sweeping/consolidating it first by sending to a subaddress of the main address and spending from there, or consolidating to another main address (different wallet). [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/kIC5jLcKZEZEMWU2 ]

That second counts as moving it to another wallet, minus some differences

Note that sweeping to the same sub account (part of the main address) opens you to tagging for future sweeps

<jojovial:matrix.org> The last comment from Jerfov2 here: reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/1bazcoz/utxo suggests it is better to not consolidate from privacy perspective. Yet, since regular Joe's payouts from p2pool are typically very small, almost any real spending of the payouts would end up having lots of payout outputs on the input sid [... too long, see mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/i9vSjLcKZTkxeVdF ]

So moving to another full sub account in wallet or preferably another wallet entirely is recommended, specially when mining on p2pool

Even spending normally can show as consolidation

My sweep tracker tags more than 4 inputs but using other heuristics it's very easy to detect even two inputs on same miner

Do not spend directly from p2pool outputs

Either sweep to another wallet or assume that they know the spender is you (and probably the amount spent)

<jojovial:matrix.org> So, if privacy comes first, one must sweep as a best practice, hence the fees part becomes irrelevant as it is unavoidable. Thank your for the explanation.

<jojovial:matrix.org> what about the limit on number of inputs? I read that typically wallets are smart and can take care of such technicalities, but is there really a limit?

They do, there is

You can check the recent likely sweeps in p2pool and see the limits they hit :)

There was recently more interest in offering a sweep type for Coinbase outputs, specially post FCMP

There is nothing yet, but hopefully this is mitigated in the future

You can always use the lowest of fees if regularly sweeping

<jojovial:matrix.org> Thanks, and what's the purpose capturing and publishing the likely sweeps data? most of the likely sweeps show close to 100% of self decoys. Is it simply a demonstration that such sweeps are inherently visible or is there a practical reason to make this data easily accessible?

<jojovial:matrix.org> btw, I see FCMP and FCMP++ being used interchangeably sometimes. Is there a difference?

<captaincanaryllc:captaincanarynode.org> is using non-default fees is still suboptimal for untraceability?

things were added so FCMP became FCMP++

<jojovial:matrix.org> got it, but it is still in development/testing phase, right? and it could still become something like FCMP+++ :D

no more pluses coming :)

code is mostly done, private testnet is up with public testnet coming soon

When I say FCMP I mean the latest iteration of it

As for the sweeps, it is to show users that those spends can be tracked with minimal effort, to incentivize the sweep out to external wallet or sub account

I don't capture the data as one off, I scan transactions in Monero and do the linkage. If I can with the shit linking I do anyone else can

If you are sweeping and can be identified, might as well use lowest fees ;)

Not identified as in person, but wallet / entity

FCMP+++ will have things to tackle reorgs and invalidated transactions

<jojovial:matrix.org> Sure, completely get it, I didn't mean to suggest that publishing can be somehow harmful to anyone, on the contrary. Just wasn't sure if there was another reason behind it that one should be aware of and use :)

Well it worked as well to make changes to p2pool so it'd generate less outputs (dynamic PPLNS)

Otherwise it was affecting the privacy of others as anyone using the p2pool decoys would not be using useful decoys

<jojovial:matrix.org> can't wait for the FCMP++, as in my understanding it should make the current techniques of tracing back the outputs obsolete

<jojovial:matrix.org> can you explain a bit on the decoys? p2pool, useful. First time hearing about this

Decoys are how Monero obscures the true spend. For each input several others are included to prevent learning which one you spent

<jojovial:matrix.org> and when you say p2pool decoys, you mean real outputs of the p2pool payout or something else?

I mean they used coinbase Tx outputs that happened to be made by p2pool

They are selected at random according to a specific distribution

<jojovial:matrix.org> I think I got it, thx

<ki9:gf4.pw> gm everyone. Here is a little bash script I made to call a hook when selfish mining is detected. The main use-case is to activate miners when the network is under attack. Thanks @DataHoarder for the API and advice. Please PM me bugs and suggestions.

<ki9:gf4.pw> gitea.gf4.pw/ki9/karmine

<ki9:gf4.pw> DataHoarder

CONTINUE_MINUTES 60 defalut, nice :)

<ki9:gf4.pw> 🫡

note from what I can see qubic mined normally (not selfish) during this marathon so far

<ki9:gf4.pw> I think I caught one ALT ROOT about 100 minutes ago.

that can happen due to timing

block is found -> gets faster to some than others

if you check every 60s, maybe trigger only if 2x in a row with different "update" timestamps exist

<ki9:gf4.pw> Was about to ask

<ki9:gf4.pw> Is 2 enough? I'll make it configurable but as a default?

alternatively try fetching the qubic hash that displays at the top from monero

if they got rpc

that checks if the block is in their node, if not, it's an alternate one or selfish

<ki9:gf4.pw> Man, I was excited to mark this little project finished haha.

:D

<ki9:gf4.pw> I'll just wait for 2x because that's easy.

via stratum I can't see if they are mining ahead or I haven't received monero block yet (I check own monero node)

so it can take a few seconds to converge, though usually it's way faster

you will also some pools lag behind sometimes

specially c3pool lol

<ki9:gf4.pw> I thought the mining ahead is what the tips were. > <DataHoarder> via stratum I can't see if they are mining ahead or I haven't received monero block yet (I check own monero node)

<ki9:gf4.pw> I don't have to understand but my readme should be correct.

tips is "highest known block"

the "tip" of the chain they have

when I say "qubic mining on TIP" is that they are mining at the same height AND block hash than the public known one

maybe you caught this one irc.gammaspectra.live/21755f300674a1a5/image.png

or different pool one

where two pools find a block at the same time

they usually keep mining the one they got first (theirs) until longest wins

nvm, they did selfish at 17:50

for a chain of TWO blocks

then no more

<ki9:gf4.pw> Oh, I see. You mean if you only check stratum, that's not enough information, you have to compare it to the tip of a "benign" node. > <DataHoarder> via stratum I can't see if they are mining ahead or I haven't received monero block yet (I check own monero node)

<ki9:gf4.pw> Right?

yes, I do that

but my node might not have gotten the block yet...

so next refresh catches it

<ki9:gf4.pw> Got it

<ki9:gf4.pw> So is two a good default? Is it reasonable to trigger an hour of mining for just two refreshes of selfishness?

their selfish mining might be there but unlucky

and suddenly they find 8 blocks in 5 minutes :D

<ki9:gf4.pw> Ok. I'll update the script tonight to wait for a second refresh before triggering the hook.

<ki9:gf4.pw> Also, I guess there's nothing stopping qubic from firewalling 3333/tcp to vpn or lan only and then it's game over for my script.

22:13:03 <br-m> <ki9:gf4.pw> Also, I guess there's nothing stopping qubic from firewalling 3333/tcp to vpn or lan only and then it's game over for my script.

miners have to mine

and they allow MRR rentals for their users

so the stratum must be connectable

is it more profitable to mine when qubic is selfish mining

efficiency says yes

this is relative to all the blocks found in aggregate btw

lol

hooray!

i should hae mined when they were mining ughhhhh

note both sides get orphans but the end result is worse for qubic

they take a share of it, but lose more

they did make changes and recently it's a bit more efficient, still below 100% when selfish