00:00:03 (like using an onion, which prevents even your isp from knowing the destination) 00:03:31 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Limited key will allow x number of wallet creation 00:03:31 Server address can be shared with someone, if it’s leaked and you need to change address, everyone using that lws will need to change it manually in their wallets 02:18:53 How’s Monero doing? ❤️ 03:08:04 Willing to buy monero for 20% above market price in bulk. Anyone selling their monero? 03:08:26 monrrreo mrr :3 03:12:29 about this question: binarybaron: are fees going to go up significantly with fcmp? 03:13:12 I wonder too, if it will grow proportionally with tx size? can someone remind what will be post-fcmp tx size in comparison to current average size? 03:38:31 @ufo808:matrix.org: About 4x (6kb) for a 1in/2out tx 03:39:46 I think base fees are supposed to 2x so about 0.00006 for a 1in2out (dont quote me though) 04:15:42 Not bad, let’s go p2p digital cash 🚀 04:26:56 @ufo808:matrix.org: Should go up as it consumes more storage space for nodes 07:45:10 in the wallet rpc for get_transfer_by_txid does the unlock_time value decrement after each new block is mined? or do you compare the unlocktime vs the height the tx was mined to determine if the unlocktime is reached? 07:45:28 > Number of blocks until transfer is safely spendable 07:59:09 Unock_time is a static number - interpreted differently depending on how large it is 07:59:27 i'm just going to use locked attribute, i'm assuming that's a simpler way to deal with that 07:59:42 Locked is confs less than 10 07:59:46 Not the same 07:59:50 damn 08:00:04 trying to avoid the whole "sending txes with huge unlock_time" prank 08:00:37 that's silly that locked could be false but the tx is still locked by unlocked_time 08:00:47 Sorry wait, a locked tx via unlock_time.should also be locked 08:01:10 But you want to see pool txs ? 08:01:10 okay, good, i would hope so 08:01:27 only for display, but not as settled confirmation 08:01:39 want to give the user an indication that it's received in short order 08:01:53 but not proceed until unlocked fully 08:05:45 If unlock_time > 0 ignore it tldr these are a none relay offence but can be mined by a malicious actor themselves. 08:06:33 lza_menace 08:07:06 fair enough, that's easy as well 08:07:08 thanks 08:08:06 Confirmations value is bot set for txs in pool from the get_transfers call 08:08:15 Not* 08:10:10 so your average/default node isn't going to include a unlock_time > 0 tx, but a modified/malicious one will. safe to assume that >0 == bad 08:10:15 and ignore 08:10:36 Yes 08:11:08 ez 08:12:16 https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-back/-/merge_requests/18/diffs?file=bc0c8af9fea63a353e82aaa663ee8b13fb9b1403#bc0c8af9fea63a353e82aaa663ee8b13fb9b1403_79_80 08:13:37 Why cant i link to the line -_- but its how ive done it, if unlock_time ignore 08:15:18 Pool txs nit having a confirmations key tripped me up so thats everything i can give to help sir 08:24:02 tyvm 18:58:24 Hi ppl. SupportXMR mining pool now has 48% hash share. (as reported here: https://miningpoolstats.stream/monero) 19:04:54 16:23:21 SupportXMR at 52% instant hashrate https://irc.gammaspectra.live/24b35bcb48144ce3/image.png 19:04:54 16:23:21 46% long term https://blocks.p2pool.observer/pools 19:05:06 they are at 44% long term hashrate now 19:05:33 when qubic is not mining they have more % ofc 19:05:52 qubic comes in/out every ~35m or so 19:05:54 25* 19:06:35 miningpoolstats looks at instant hashrate, I look at long-term hashrate from blocks actually found (from Monero data) 19:54:17 why can't people collectively agree to rotate pools this time? 19:54:32 because nobody is holding a gun to their heads 19:55:02 idk that's literally what could happen 19:55:27 just offer supportxmr a couple mil to sell out the network 19:55:52 I realize the operators are trusted but monero is meant to be trustless 19:58:22 @angled:matrix.angled.rip: pool operators should not be trusted by default even if they have a history, this is not how it should be addressed in a trustless network 19:59:45 @angled:matrix.angled.rip: use p2pool then :) 20:00:14 many new people join -> they go straight to top pool 20:07:34 @angled:matrix.angled.rip: Getting rid of minexmr didnt fix anything 20:08:11 @datahoarder: https://m.bitmain.com/product/detail?pid=00020251226185131923DUjfvPIO06BC 20:08:11 or the new "people" joining the pool are actually just a bitmain mining cluster 20:08:30 not nonce wise 20:08:31 oh no, i'm scared of a..... 20:08:35 RISC-V cluster 20:08:47 oooh so scary 20:09:30 these probably were with us for years 20:09:37 and are just now getting ready to sell them 20:09:47 if it was an actual ASIC, you'd see them solomining 20:09:53 and take up like 95% of the networ 20:09:54 network* 20:10:04 not mining on an existing pool 20:10:08 and taking up.. nothing 20:12:05 Cindy: afaik previous one were on pools too 20:12:49 DataHoarder: you mean like cryptonight? 20:12:57 I mean X5 20:13:32 no i mean when monero used cryptonight 20:13:49 is X5 that old? 20:13:57 I don't know then 20:13:59 no 20:14:36 i remember bitmain taking over the network back then 20:14:44 were they solomining or pool mining? 20:19:38 Cindy: Never took over , they were mining to pools 20:19:51 i see 20:20:10 even when they managed to make a cryptonight ASIC? 20:53:22 @datahoarder: Yes because on every pool comparison website they order it by hashrate share. OFC people click on the first one. Especially looking at that percentage possibly thinking they will do the most money there. 20:56:38 I think an efficient sollution would be to change the default sorting mode and give top places to pools with lower fees or longer history...etc. P2Pool should always occupy the first place. 20:58:34 a 51% attack I guess/hope would not be possible in a instant hashrate share increase. > miningpoolstats looks at instant hashrate, I look at long-term hashrate from blocks actually found (from Monero data) 20:58:45 P2Pool has zero fees 20:58:51 you think this might attract people 20:59:17 Will surely do! 20:59:44 Not only has it zero fees, it also has xmrvsbeast's raffle for some extra bonus 21:00:19 Can botnets mine to p2pool ? 21:00:30 they can setup their own p2pool somewhere 21:00:32 even via tor 21:00:37 elongated: yes 21:01:04 an intelligent enough toaster can mine in p2pool 21:01:07 @marioob:matrix.org: also still provide a sorting mode by hashrate share but just not make it as default. 21:03:06 https://blocks.p2pool.observer/pools 21:03:06 here the high share pool has a warning color (yellow) and the low share pools have the valid color (green) this is a good method to highlight smaller pools. 21:03:14 :) 21:03:20 glad you like it 21:04:09 DataHoarder: what if p2pool had a high share? 21:04:31 I'd split them per pools 21:04:37 but then I would have to look at per-miner distribution 21:04:50 it's still distributed 21:05:03 as each miner controls their own tx targets 21:05:11 but single miner having then 51% of monero 21:20:07 I would go further to assign colors as follows: > glad you like it 21:20:07 > danger (red) 4 pools over 40% 21:20:07 > warning (yellow) 4 pools 30-40% 21:20:07 > valid (green) 4 pools 0-30% 21:21:51 it is like this https://git.gammaspectra.live/P2Pool/blocks.p2pool.observer/src/branch/master/templates/pools.gohtml#L88 21:22:02 50, 33, 5 21:23:33 40% I still find it dangerous 21:27:42 page doesn't support sorting. I suspect you want to stay off of javascript? 21:28:32 correct 21:28:36 it's also cached 21:28:45 and generated in the background v 22:31:49 Monero have the equivalent to Bitcoin Map? 22:32:56 wtf is bitcoin map 23:04:44 Cindy: https://f-droid.org/packages/org.btcmap 23:05:12 no 23:05:51 i don't think someone made an openstreetmap overlay for that 23:52:14 @hopeful26:unredacted.org: xmrbazaar.com 23:54:59 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: thanks 23:55:15 And this https://xmrmap.org/map