How many CPUs can we estimate as being on the network atm?

I think its 50k minimum

And that's assuming 15kh/s for every CPU and 750mh nethash

So that's like, about as firm a floor as you can get

15kh/s is more than a 3900X

I'm upper bounding everything

I thought I heard of someone getting 16kh

From one chip

What should the floor be? Give me a better estimate

My numbers lowball everything hard

16k was a 3950X, my i3 with 1 stick of DDR3 gets 600 H/s

I can't give you a better estimate but I am sure others will be able :)

maybe take a 3600X benchmark as typical instead

it seems to be the sweet spot in price/perf

but of course, majority of CPUs are older than Ryzen 3000 generation

lol. they could try, but the info would leak out pretty quickly

im trying to keep my eye on the # of miners in the 5th column

for all of bitcoins centralization, the # of miners is impressive

does # of miners = # of addresses?

thats the best way I can think of that they do it

so 25098 * X

but i dunno. maybe the pool's API provides different information on the actual # of workers

looks like we've had a successful epoch change

I'm pretty sure the network has >100k CPUs, probably even >200k

gingeropolous: Speaking of murmuring, Genesis Mining murmurs: "as the “RandomX” fork is also weakening general GPU mining capabilities considerably, there is no business-centric argument at this point, that can convince large-scale mining operations to try and adapt to these changing protocol rules without the need of large additional investments into any mining infrastructure for this

cryptocurrency. "

and "we cannot continue to offer Monero mining as a product any longer." Boo-fucking-hoo

Bitcoin has ~75x amount of miners (according to miningpoolstats.stream), but ~160x security budget compared to XMR

Interested to see what happens after the halvening

security budget?

security budget = block reward?

+ fees

^

Interesting: techpowerup.com/261760/aws-starts-d…arm-neoverse-n1-cpu-for-data-center

Current CPU has 105W TDP, 64 cores @ 3.1 GHz and they're developing new 32 core version as far as I understood

defterade_: so it will be on par come May 2020 almost.

err nevermind. mind fog today

Re: the risk of supercomputer-based 51% attack on Monero

Summit (#1), Tianhe-2 (#4) and Frontera (#5) can do at most 300 MH/s each. Sierra (#2) is weaker than Summit. Not sure about Sunway TaihuLight (#3) - it has a custom CPU: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunway_SW26010 but it looks to be similar to Xeon Phi, which doesn't seem to perform very well.

so it looks like at least 3 TOP 5 supercomputers are needed to attack Monero at the moment.

since they were talking about a manufacturer attack and trying to use sales numbers to figure it out, it would be interesting to find its way less profitable to mine with the CPU inventory than to sell them

it is way more profitable to sell, even for Epyc CPUs

Epyc 7742 costs $7k and makes $160 per month of mining (before electricity costs)

no threadripper benchmarks yet? Any guesses?

this guy may post some TR benches soon reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/dz60c5/a_…look_at_amds_16core_ryzen_9/f86l2c8

why this happend any idea

[2019-12-03 11:53:19.219] rx failed to allocate RandomX dataset, switching to slow mode (6 ms)

Segmentation fault

unstable CPU

slow mode puts much higher load on the core

oki

so the CPU may be stable in fast mode, but will crash in slow mode

its specially for few cpus ?

cause other works fine in slow mode

depends on silicon lottery

is there any sense whatsoever in this "cryptonight adaptive" algorithm? bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3464367.0

seeing claims of pooled mining resistance always excites me... and then i get disappointed

Angrywasp is... interesting person (not like FUK, but still interesting)

He spent lots of time implementing what he claims

So maybe it's true

You need to store the whole blockchain to be able to mine it, hence "pool resistant"

no idea why

Probably uses random access to the chain data

As part of the PoW

" Create a hash algorithm that changes automatically at regular intervals each time breaking support in ASICS, mining pools and GPU mining software".. that doesn't sound like it would break pooled mining

but thats oldschool needmonero90 , boolberry had that afaik

Boolberry read from the chain. I want to say 2 GB of it but I could be wrong.

Boolberry had something around 400 MB of data extracted from the chain

before they switched to something else

and you can still read from a blockchain and have pooled mining. just increases the operational costs of mining.

Pool verification server also needs full blockchain, maybe this is why

wat? pools need full blockchain regardless, right?

here's the commit for that algo apparently. bitbucket.org/nerva-project/nerva/c…37ebefd123381895da1de10d25467386339

i mean, i guess if you can force reading from the blockchain, you can force cooperative mining as opposed to hashing

so your still pooling, but your creating your own block templates

this could be the thing that gets jtgrassie's stratum thing to be enforcable

The only way to prevent pool mining is to embed proof of knowledge into PoW proof

well, there's nuance with pooled mining

aka miner must prove it know private spend keey for the wallet it mines to

so it makes it literally impossible to mine to pool's wallet because everyone will have access to it

pooled mining with distributed creation of block template is relatively OK - the miners are creating the blocks, and are in a cooperative agreement.

One coin did this. Called Pebblecoin I think ?

Maybe another. But one definitely did.

no, it was something else. i remember it too

pooled mining with centralized block template creation is bad - this is what we have now, and miners are just workers

XMRig supports stratum self-select btw

< sech1> You need to store the whole blockchain to be able to mine it <--- Sounds a bit like Arweave. But the Arweave implementation is not pool resistant as far as I can tell.

I used to dislike pools but tbh I've kinda gone back a bit on that. Small pools are good, they allow low hash rate people to mine where they otherwise would not. Large pools are bad. But a large pool can masquerade as several small ones, so you can't attack large ones only. Unless a way is found...

so we only need self-select pools now

spreadcoin

even if it is "proof of access" where you need a random previous block in order to mine this block

Oooh, could well be gingeropolous.

found my old bitcointalk posts: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1045373.0;topicseen . But they have since butchered their coin with masternodes.

right, we only need self select pools

but no pool operator is going to do it

or at least self-select ports on existing pools

What's the drawback(s) for pools ?

Centralization?

there's none, its just that its more work. miners won't want to do it either. they need to run monerod then

Fair enough.

so if you do boolberry-type blockchain read, you force running of monerod, so at least they have that

One node per miner will be enough, they just need to set it up somewhere. But yes, it's more work

Miners won't do it unless such pool pays more

I mean one node for all miner's computers

right. i pitched that to m5m500, it didn't fly

M5M400

and of all the pools, you'd think supportxmr would be the one to do it

Maybe you just need to actually upgrade to the 500 version then ^_^

is there a way to hack in blockchain reads into randomx?

please no

we're done with tweaks, right?

well this isn't really related to specialized hardware

Possibly, possibly not. I wouldn't want to say no before seeing conditions in the future.

pool-resistance is stupid, you incentivize large scale mining operations and botnets and drive out hobbyists and small operations who are more sensitive to bad luck.

yes, i know

we need to find a way to enforce cooperative pooled mining, not master-slave pooled mining

right, okay

It's only stupid if the pools are small. And vice versa.

p2p pool, self-select pool

its not possible for the network to have its own pools? maybe geographically load balanced?

It is. It's called p2pool.

It didn't take off with Bitcoin though

would the pool fee go to those who take the burden of host the resources for it? kind of like we have with nodes now? or would there be no pool fee since its all centralized in a decentralized sort of way?

It's configurable

p2pool runs on a consensus between all pool's miners

if pool's code has fee, all miners must agree with it by mining on that pool

There is no pool per se, so no pool fee.

yes, but the way rewards are distributed

Everyone hosts the resources.

it's done in pool's code

so it can have dev wallet's address in each mined block with some small fee

Sure, but that's unrelated to p2pool.

It could be done with monerod too.

Now I mean.

yes, it's more like dev fee, not pool fee

maybe thats not what im thinking of then. this would be one big network pool, which is divided and balanced dynamically by whatever makes sense, and those are they only pools to mine to. would probably have to do away with individual mining as well?

but nothing prevents miners from forking the code, removing fee and mining there

You can have any number of p2pools, so not one big network pool necessarily. You could have a few with different rules for the sharechain (ie, share difficulty).

I expect you could even have geographically located p2pools. Anyone can join from elsewhere, but have more orphan risks :)

Could work well for China, if they can find one place that has fast ping to outside China.

remember, im dumb, but what you guys are talking about sounds more like users can setup their own pools still?

It's permissionless, yes.

Though it's not really "their own", same as it's not "your monero network".

You use it as you will, others do too.

I guess the comparison is a bit meh.

if you couldnt and you could only mine via the network pools that itself created but hosted via the users, couldnt you prevent a 51% attack as the network pools obv dont want to attack itself?

Well, the network pools aren't sentient. They're just the sum of their miners.

You also cannot mine only via the p2pools, since p2pools ultimately follow the existing consensus rules when adding a block.

If you require metadata showing it's from a p2pool, it can be faked too.

so someone with enough hash could still 51% but controlling the pools would at least stop a pool from going rogue? which has a better chance of 51% than an individual.

i don't see how large master-slave mining pools are a threat to decentralization

how are colluding pool operators going to diverge enough hashrate for long enough to pull off a double spend without alerting everyone of their attempt

do we expect miners to not care / notice soon enough?

perhaps only if mining power is highly geographically centralized, you could launch an attack at night

a certain outcome is that participating pools lose a reliable source of income

besides, exchanges and merchant should already factor in double spend risk in the number of confirmations required for large deposits/payments so realistically there is not much to gain from a double spend in a shallow reorg anyways

i wonder, are transactions that have disappeared from the blockchain as a result of a reorg put back into the mempool?

because that would impair a reorg with empty blocks and short the market approach for chains with low blocksize pressure

<defterade_> how are colluding pool operators going to diverge enough hashrate for long enough to pull off a double spend without alerting everyone of their attempt >>> while that may be valid, to me its too dependent on people being good.

the point of this whole system is to remove that dependency

i mean hell, if we're gonna depend on people being good, then we should just embrace ASICs. gazing!

gah-zing!

Yeah but what if a government funds an asic fab to make enough asics to 51% the network?

Bet you never thought of that one