00:33:32 <selsta> xrv0: where did you get this? "http://stagenet.community.xmr.to:38084"
00:33:44 <selsta> 38081 is the correct port
00:34:33 <selsta> so try "./monero-wallet-rpc --stagenet --daemon-host http://stagenet.community.xmr.to:38081 --rpc-bind-port 38084 --rpc-login rpc_user:abc123 --wallet-dir ./"
01:05:27 <xrv0> thanks selsta. I really don't know why I though 38084 was the correct port. It's still not working but it might be a bug in my code.
01:48:31 <clarkz> not sure how active the channel is, but just a quick question. I havnt been mining xmr since 2017, and back then xmrig was the go to for cpu mining
01:48:39 <clarkz> just wanted to see if that is still the case
01:49:02 <clarkz> their github is still up to date/recently updated
01:51:51 <matryoshka> clarkz: still is the case, yes
01:51:57 <matryoshka> nothing beats xmrig
01:52:17 <clarkz> ok, thanks
01:52:50 <clarkz> most guides understandably ignore the cpu mining aspect, but I have a 8 r740s from my homelab and free power, so figured id power those up/see what remains of my gpu mining days
01:53:30 <u29601mg6ba93j[m> https://mobile.twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1353071855859458048
02:26:56 <diverter[m]> 2.5 GH/s? Ok then, somebody getting paid
03:38:43 <h2017> u29601mg6ba93j[m, let's take that up on monero-markets. i have something to say
11:38:20 <manataw> hello
11:50:25 <tertiary> hello
11:50:49 <_I3^RELATIVISM> o/ manataw tertiary
11:52:56 <tertiary> im a complete beginner to crypto in general, but i had a few questions about what i was reading on the r/MoneroMining wiki
11:53:04 <tertiary> what's the difference between pool mining and solo mining?
11:53:49 <manataw> pool mining u give your cpu power to others for having more possiblities to have block reward
11:54:10 <_I3^RELATIVISM> pool mining is when people join toghether and split the reward
11:54:10 <manataw> solo mining u try only with your cpu to have block reward
11:54:27 <manataw> solo mining is like casino
11:54:33 <manataw> no chances to win
11:54:52 <_I3^RELATIVISM> the thing is wich is quite stupid, given it is a waste
11:55:25 <_I3^RELATIVISM> when you mine most of the times you effort is done to the network not to win the actual block
11:55:43 <_I3^RELATIVISM> if I made myself clear, so you need to start over
11:55:59 <_I3^RELATIVISM> when you join with others you have more processing power
11:56:14 <_I3^RELATIVISM> making for a higher chance you get the block
11:56:23 <_I3^RELATIVISM> given you are faster tertiary
11:56:40 <tertiary> ah, that makes sense
11:56:54 <_I3^RELATIVISM> RandomX a monero feauture evens out the field a bit, but nontheless pool mining is still better
11:57:20 <_I3^RELATIVISM> https://web.getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/randomx.html
11:57:37 <_I3^RELATIVISM> tertiary: also many countries have their own comunity pools
11:57:46 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so you might want ot join your own
11:58:13 <_I3^RELATIVISM> probably there is a room in matrix that can point you in the right direction
12:02:58 <tertiary> theres a #monero-pools channel apparently which im guessing could help
12:02:59 <moneromooo> It is not clear whether this is misrepresentation given "better" is subjective, but solo and pool mining give you about the same average income at first approximation.
12:03:22 <moneromooo> Pool mining will have much less variance, typically, which is what many people want.
12:03:44 <moneromooo> Solo mining avoids the pool fee, pool scam possibility, and give you privacy.
12:04:09 <moneromooo> Pool mining avoids having to have the chain (the pool has it) and smoothes variance out.
12:04:32 <moneromooo> Pool miners are faster, but you can use a pool miner to solo mine too.
12:05:13 <tertiary> i just have a spare computer lying around, im not that deep into building a rig or anything but i want to try it just for fun tbh, and from what ive read pool mining works better on normal hardware, is that true?
12:05:21 <moneromooo> Now, variance is *very* high for solo mining unless large hash rate.
12:05:59 <moneromooo> Depends on the actual abnormality the abnormal hardware exhibits I guess :)
12:07:48 <manataw> how to test which  server is faster for mining
12:07:51 <manataw> i have 2
12:08:03 <manataw> solo mining
12:08:16 <moneromooo> Run a miner on both, run mining_status from time to time, check hash rate.
12:09:53 <_I3^RELATIVISM> tertiary: for reference when moneromooo refers to hash rate he means processing power or at least both are corelated that is why pool mining is better because hashrate is higher.
12:10:06 <_I3^RELATIVISM> If you did not understood
12:11:19 <manataw> because blockchain need hours to download what will be better      four  Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4870 with 32gbram  or two AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6272  with 32gbram
12:11:34 <moneromooo> When you say better, can you expand a bit ? It's not clear to me whether you are correct or wrong :)
12:11:45 <manataw> bmore hash power
12:12:01 <_I3^RELATIVISM> from personal experience moneromooo
12:12:17 <_I3^RELATIVISM> not based on anything empirical
12:12:18 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so
12:12:40 <moneromooo> Block device speed is the biggest difference for chain sync speed. Get an SSD.
12:12:44 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I totally acceppt someone proving me wrong with a based argument
12:12:58 <manataw> i have ssd
12:13:35 <moneromooo> I mean I'm just not sure what you mean by "better" here. If you mean much less variance, then you're right. If you mean substantially larger income on average, then you're wrong.
12:14:00 <moneromooo> Many people make the latter mistake, that's why I'm wondering, it's not clear whether you did or not.
12:14:36 <manataw> yes im talking about larger income on average
12:15:01 <moneromooo> Then at first approximation, same income on long timelines.
12:15:19 <moneromooo> But long here is dozens of years.
12:15:26 <moneromooo> (typically)
12:15:42 <endor00[m]> Average income is the same for solo vs pool
12:15:51 <endor00[m]> Variance != larger income
12:16:06 <_I3^RELATIVISM> that hasnt been my experience
12:16:17 <_I3^RELATIVISM> but thanks to make me reconsider
12:16:25 <_I3^RELATIVISM> my bias on that
12:16:42 <manataw> most of people believe that pool mining is better than solo (me too)
12:16:51 <endor00[m]> It wouldn't make sense if it were otherwise
12:17:21 <endor00[m]> Because otherwise pools would be printing money out of nowhere
12:17:25 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00: what "sense" are you refering to
12:17:27 <_I3^RELATIVISM> o/ raecarruth
12:17:36 <endor00[m]> Logical sense
12:17:42 <moneromooo> It's pretty likely you'll get zero solo mining for a good while. In the meantime, you'd get scraps with pool mining. Until you gt a block solo mining, in which case you typically get more than you'd have got pool mining all this time.
12:17:53 <moneromooo> So on short timescales, most people will see more income from pool mining.
12:17:59 <raecarruth> ohai _I3^RELATIVISM
12:18:01 <_I3^RELATIVISM> would you care to share the "logic" behind such "sense"
12:18:08 <manataw> but moneromooo knows more
12:18:08 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00:
12:18:22 <endor00[m]> Look at it this way: from the pov of the network, a mining pool looks like one single solo miner
12:18:34 <manataw> so monero team must do better marketing
12:18:56 <_I3^RELATIVISM> manataw: that is the wrong aproach
12:18:59 <koork> It's very clearly the same if you don't care about variance. If the pool divides the profits based on hashrate, and you're 1/n of it, then you mine n times as many blocks with 1/n the reward
12:19:07 <_I3^RELATIVISM> people should take arguments fo hat they are
12:19:20 <_I3^RELATIVISM> or you fall the risk of a authority falacy
12:19:29 <manataw> moneromooo is very strong argument!
12:20:09 <endor00[m]> So for your claim to be true (average pool earning > solo mining) it would mean that the pool somehow managed to mine more than a solo miner with the same hashrate would earn. But that cannot be possible, because a pool *is* (as a whole entity) a solo miner
12:20:30 <_I3^RELATIVISM> manataw: you are not helping that this conversation is productive
12:20:56 <endor00[m]> This is a contradiction, therefore average pool earning must be equal to average solo earning given the same hashrate
12:21:08 <_I3^RELATIVISM> no that is incorrect
12:21:11 <manataw> you are not helping that this conversation is productive??
12:21:26 <_I3^RELATIVISM> given higher hash rate makes for faster aproximation to the block
12:21:35 <_I3^RELATIVISM> therefore higher earnings
12:21:42 <manataw> moneromooo is not strong argument?
12:21:46 <_I3^RELATIVISM> randomx tries to mitigate this
12:21:51 <manataw> check what he has done for monero
12:21:55 <moneromooo> I think the common misunderstanding that might be due to the expectation that mining is more like a race per block, where the faster would consistently find all blocks. THis is not the case, mining is "memory less".
12:21:58 <endor00[m]> <_I3^RELATIVISM "given higher hash rate makes for"> You are mixing up concepts
12:22:00 <_I3^RELATIVISM> but from my experience it doesnt has a whole
12:22:14 <endor00[m]> <moneromooo "I think the common misunderstand"> ^ this
12:22:20 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00: and you havent yet been able to base your arguments
12:22:54 <koork> I3^RELATIVISM more blocks but less reward per person per block
12:22:57 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: ok great we are going somewhere
12:23:04 <endor00[m]> The basis of my argument is understanding how mining works and how pools split work
12:23:19 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so then how do you earn a block or wish people do moneromooo
12:23:28 <_I3^RELATIVISM> how is that determined
12:24:08 <_I3^RELATIVISM> koork: sure that is true but from my experience the relation is not linear
12:24:09 <endor00[m]> The probability of anyone finding a block is a gamma distribution
12:24:17 <endor00[m]> Of which we adjust the mean such that the average block time is ~2m
12:24:19 <_I3^RELATIVISM> that is the point I think endor00 fail to understand yet
12:24:28 <moneromooo> It's a random search, similar to gold mining. Or how gold mining would be if all gold nuggets were the same size and no seams existed. Just random specks of gold equally distributed all over a river.
12:24:56 <moneromooo> Two people will find twice as many specks on average. But not, say, three times.
12:25:23 <_I3^RELATIVISM> and how does this differs from lets say bitcoin
12:25:38 <moneromooo> It does not beyond details.
12:25:41 <endor00[m]> It doesn't differ from bitcoin
12:25:43 <_I3^RELATIVISM> again disclamer I basing my argument on experience not real praxxis
12:26:02 <endor00[m]> You need to re-evaluate your experience
12:26:22 <moneromooo> Did you find many solo blocks ?
12:26:25 <endor00[m]> And apply some mathematical rigor to it
12:26:31 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so then what does randomx brng to the table, and why do ASICS produce more? eficciency of use of processing power?
12:26:43 <moneromooo> Point being, few data points can give a very skewed picture.
12:26:47 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00: sure that is why I continue discussing it
12:26:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> but i will not acept baseless arguments
12:27:05 <_I3^RELATIVISM> if I wasting my time on it
12:27:12 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I wish to understand it fully
12:27:25 <endor00[m]> Our arguments are not baseless, but they assume you understand the core mechanics of mining
12:27:30 <moneromooo> ASICs hash much faster. Think of it as someone who can filter 100x as much water than others. That person will find 100x more gold on average.
12:27:36 <_I3^RELATIVISM> not arguments like "mneromoo knows best as stated in the begining"
12:27:49 <elliot[m]> Monero is ASIC resistant
12:28:01 <moneromooo> Randomx uses a CPU's strengths, where it's already fast (due to Intel/AMD/etc's research in making those parts fast).
12:28:11 <endor00[m]> Asics don't "produce" more, they are just much more efficient in terms of H/s/W, so they will drive out anyone with a lower efficiency
12:28:15 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: ok so it comes down to eficincy of processing power has stated before
12:28:23 <endor00[m]> Profitability is based on efficiency vs power cost
12:28:31 <moneromooo> Yes, compared to other miners.
12:28:45 <moneromooo> Again with the gold analogy:
12:28:47 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so then how does randomx mitigates this
12:29:00 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moving foward that is
12:29:15 <endor00[m]> RandomX makes it very hard to develop an asic, because to make one you basically have to make a full cpu
12:29:28 <_I3^RELATIVISM> and doesnt that affect poolvssolo mining as well
12:29:36 <endor00[m]> And the assumption is that you're probably not gonna be better than intel and amd at their own job
12:29:39 <_I3^RELATIVISM> oh I see
12:29:51 <moneromooo> Alice can filter 1 cubic cm of water per second. Bob also can do so. They're the only people sifting for gold. Their income will be the same on average.
12:29:51 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so to mitigate you ar allways changing it
12:30:18 <elliot[m]> The memory requirements of monero make ASIC not feasible.
12:30:19 <moneromooo> If Alice gets better sifting hardware, and can do 2 ccm/s, she'll get twice as much as Bob.
12:30:26 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sure how do you change it though
12:30:33 <moneromooo> But if Bob gets that same hw, they'll get the same income again.
12:30:43 <endor00[m]> Change what?
12:30:45 <_I3^RELATIVISM> understand you last argument
12:30:52 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I moved foward know
12:30:54 <_I3^RELATIVISM> now
12:30:56 <moneromooo> The difference is that they'll both get more, but with monero it's a fixed amount per time due to the difficulty algorithm.
12:31:08 <_I3^RELATIVISM> "so then how does randomx mitigates this
12:31:09 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moving foward that is"
12:31:16 <_I3^RELATIVISM> "and doesnt that affect poolvssolo mining as well
12:31:16 <_I3^RELATIVISM> "
12:31:19 <_I3^RELATIVISM> ^^
12:31:23 <moneromooo> You can see the diff algorithm as something that adjusts the concentration of gold specks in the water in real time.
12:32:01 <_I3^RELATIVISM> ok you mean way from asics?
12:32:02 <moneromooo> So as Alice and Bob both get faster sifting hardware, they'll sift twice as fast in a river that's got only half the gold -> same income.
12:32:18 <_I3^RELATIVISM> how do you clasify what are asics and what are not
12:32:31 <_I3^RELATIVISM> that seams a rabit hole waiting for security holes
12:32:36 <endor00[m]> ASIC = Application Specific Integrated Circuit
12:32:48 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00: I understand what a ASIC is
12:32:48 <endor00[m]> That means a piece of hardware designed for one single purpose
12:32:57 <endor00[m]> That is how you classify asics
12:33:11 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00: please focus on my specific questions
12:33:18 <_I3^RELATIVISM> if you wish to answer them
12:33:22 <endor00[m]> Dude you are contradicting yourself
12:33:35 * _I3^RELATIVISM ignores endor00 
12:33:53 <endor00[m]> If you actually understand what an ASIC is, then you understand what makes it different from a cpu
12:34:12 <moneromooo> FWIW endor00[m] has been consistently correct, you may want to re-read maybe, you might have misunderstood some bits.
12:34:57 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: I agree that endor00 has been correct
12:34:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> the problem is that peer rambles on relating questions I never asked
12:34:59 <moneromooo> Classification can be subjcetive, if that's what you're trying to get at.
12:35:01 <_I3^RELATIVISM> in efect destroying the discussion
12:35:16 <_I3^RELATIVISM> and making it dificult to continue a train of though
12:35:17 <endor00[m]> Then perhaps you are unaware how un-specific your questions are
12:35:24 <_I3^RELATIVISM> yes that is
12:35:24 <moneromooo> Well, you're not super clear in your questions, so... :)
12:35:29 <_I3^RELATIVISM> classicfication
12:35:40 <endor00[m]> The classification is implied in the definition
12:35:45 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: sorry about that english is not my native language
12:35:55 <endor00[m]> That is what my answer says
12:36:09 <Inge-> 1. RandomX protocol has not changed since it was launched in Nov 2019, 2. But it runs a random set of instructions, which is what general purpose CPU's are good at - and very hard to optimize better than the general purpose CPU manufacturers, 3. having general-purpose CPU's being used for mining means that it is available all over the world, to regular people, and not limited to specific hw vendors = better
12:36:15 <Inge-> decentralization
12:36:37 <endor00[m]> ^
12:36:43 <_I3^RELATIVISM> ok great I understood that
12:36:58 <Inge-> cool
12:37:27 <_I3^RELATIVISM> my questions is how are intructions diferentiated between ASICS and general porpouse CPUs
12:37:32 <endor00[m]> Pro tip: if someone is telling you that you're wrong when you are asking them to explain things to you, you need to be humble and accept that
12:37:36 <_I3^RELATIVISM> there is the need for classification
12:37:50 <endor00[m]> <_I3^RELATIVISM "my questions is how are intructi"> you are asking the wrong question
12:37:53 <moneromooo> ASICs typically don't have instructions.
12:38:13 <_I3^RELATIVISM> you assumption of humility is incorrect please stop spamming with unrelated topics
12:38:27 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: exactly
12:38:36 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so that is why my question remains
12:38:37 <moneromooo> They have the circuitry for a particular computation. Instructions are for building an algorithm out of simple building blocks.
12:38:45 <_I3^RELATIVISM> how is classification defined
12:39:53 <_I3^RELATIVISM>  * endor00: you assumption of humility is incorrect please stop spamming with unrelated topics
12:41:03 <_I3^RELATIVISM> my problem with endor00 engagement is that he has no problem in making falacies of authority
12:41:09 <_I3^RELATIVISM> wish to me is a problem
12:41:18 <_I3^RELATIVISM> because it becomes a non discussion
12:41:32 <_I3^RELATIVISM> one will acept another argument
12:41:40 <_I3^RELATIVISM> based on their argument nothing else
12:42:05 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so ther is no point in trying to prov superiority
12:42:07 <Inge-> I don't really understand what question you are trying to get answered.
12:42:13 <_I3^RELATIVISM> this is not lack of humility
12:42:31 <_I3^RELATIVISM> but embrassing the discussion with a critical mind
12:42:47 <endor00[m]> my problem with you is that you're an entitled jackass who is not capable of engaging a different point of view and expects others to follow his every whim but shits on the people trying to explain things to him
12:42:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: "ASICs typically don't have instructions."
12:43:04 <manataw> _I3^RELATIVISM  is spamming
12:43:48 <_I3^RELATIVISM> ahah you are funny
12:43:49 <endor00[m]> The only answer I have left to give you is: read a fucking book and learn how shit works before asking another question
12:43:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I sad you fall under such assumption
12:44:13 <endor00[m]> If you're not qualified to hold a technical conversation, then you are not part of the conversation
12:44:22 <_I3^RELATIVISM> just because I didnt acepted you arguments until you provide base for them
12:44:25 <_I3^RELATIVISM> anyway
12:44:41 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I wish you are not so defensive next time
12:44:52 <endor00[m]> Isn't it nice, to be able to arbitrarily reject arguments as "baseless" when you know fuck-all about a topic?
12:45:04 <raecarruth> whoa.
12:45:41 <_I3^RELATIVISM> that is why people have arguments to learn from others
12:45:53 * koork eating popcorn
12:45:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> but endor00 you are showing your true collours now
12:46:14 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I wish you the best of luck in solving you insecurity problems
12:46:22 <moneromooo> Stop being a jerk please. If people miss your question, try to rephrase rather than insulting them.
12:46:28 <Inge-> ^
12:46:30 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moving foward if there is still any wish in such
12:46:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: are you refering to me or endor00 dont really understand
12:47:35 <moneromooo> Yes, you. Poissiblt the language barrier, but you come off as arrogant and self satisfied.
12:47:41 <_I3^RELATIVISM> given that peer seams to be the one to be a jerk when one points out his arguments werent based
12:47:51 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: that is a ssumption
12:48:12 <_I3^RELATIVISM> to have a productive discourse one must not make judgment like that
12:48:29 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so have were not born in a english speaking contry
12:48:31 <moneromooo> Language barrier possibility is you mentioning it before, my opinion is from my own experience,
12:48:48 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so would be helpful not to do so
12:48:57 <_I3^RELATIVISM> endor00: was extremely defensive
12:49:07 <_I3^RELATIVISM> just because I pointed out his falacies
12:49:15 <_I3^RELATIVISM> when it relates to authorithy
12:49:25 <_I3^RELATIVISM> and unrelated refutations
12:49:50 <_I3^RELATIVISM> no need to be a "jerk" and uncordial by ofending people
12:49:59 <Inge-> Ok I'm out. I don't have time for all the personal philosphy. _I3^RELATIVISM do know that people here generally try really hard to answer good questions and help people who apply themselves to learn. But probably NOBODY here has the patience for your lecturing.
12:50:17 <moneromooo> A few hours on /ignore should do it ^_^ See you.
12:50:18 <_I3^RELATIVISM> is not lecturing
12:50:51 <Inge-> whatever you are not doing, you can now do it without taking up our time o/`
12:50:59 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I see why there were problems in this comuity before
12:50:59 <_I3^RELATIVISM> the disregard for logic is astonashing
12:50:59 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I now you are probabbly all friends
12:51:18 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sad
12:51:25 <manataw> finally any channel owner here to make a stop to this
12:51:37 <Inge-> manataw: /ignore also works wonders.
12:51:50 <_I3^RELATIVISM> anyway if anybody else is interested in my original question
12:51:55 <_I3^RELATIVISM> before endor00
12:51:55 <elliot[m]> Omg what a retard.
12:52:07 <_I3^RELATIVISM> destroyed it
12:52:10 * _I3^RELATIVISM sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/hjYKwAizISzhstAQkxAzCzMJ/message.txt >
12:52:11 <elliot[m]> Fuck off troll.
12:52:13 <_I3^RELATIVISM> ?
12:52:29 <manataw> no ignore block please
12:52:30 <_I3^RELATIVISM> elliot: I see you are not much diferent that endor00
12:53:00 <manataw> block we are searching this channel for quality things and he destroyed with shit
12:53:03 <manataw> please block
12:53:05 <_I3^RELATIVISM> is sad the level of entitlement, when you cannot admit you arguments were falacies
12:53:46 <_I3^RELATIVISM> anyway you are only icnetivizing further atitudes like endor00 showed
12:54:01 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I understand Anonimal now
12:54:10 <_I3^RELATIVISM> are people that insecure?
12:54:11 <moneromooo> I wouldn't. Just let it blow off, people usually take some time to get back to good sense when annoyed.
12:54:28 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I should be the one anoyed
12:54:50 <_I3^RELATIVISM> moneromooo: given I had a valid question before this people hijacked
12:54:58 <sech1> Am I late to the party?
12:55:00 <_I3^RELATIVISM> bcause of stupid assumptions
12:55:22 <sech1> What was the question?
12:55:28 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sech1: no party at all very concerning judgment by some of the members
12:55:39 * _I3^RELATIVISM sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/HTxsDRjxryxZDPKdClbgDqxC/message.txt >
12:55:58 <elliot[m]> This piece of shit is a troll. All you need know.
12:56:01 <sech1> what's called ASIC? It depends on who you ask
12:56:14 <sech1> GPU engineers calls GPU ASICs too
12:56:16 <_I3^RELATIVISM> no for randomx
12:56:17 <sech1> *call
12:56:21 <_I3^RELATIVISM> and mining
12:56:25 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sech1:
12:57:04 <_I3^RELATIVISM> what determines in randomx what is classified has a ASICS and what is not
12:57:24 <elliot[m]> Omg learn English...
12:57:30 <sech1> for mining? It's just a chip that can do only one algorithm (or possible same algorithm with different parameters or slight variations)
12:57:44 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sure I understand that
12:57:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> my questions is regarding something diferent though
12:57:59 <moneromooo> elliot[m]: no need to inflame things
12:58:14 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sorry english is not my native language
12:58:38 <_I3^RELATIVISM> now that all the nonsense has stopped maybe I can explain it better
12:59:09 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so RandomX makes it hard for ASICS to mine given you would have be constantly upgrading the ASICS
12:59:23 <_I3^RELATIVISM> wish makes it not worth the money obviously
12:59:51 <_I3^RELATIVISM> but my question is sech1 how does such classification happend with such mitigation
12:59:52 <elliot[m]> Uh yes.
13:00:17 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so that you can pull way block from ASICS
13:00:38 <sech1> it is possible to make ASIC for RandomX
13:00:51 <elliot[m]> But not efficient.
13:01:16 <_I3^RELATIVISM> sure true
13:01:19 <sech1> but at this point it will be universal enough to serve as a regular CPU
13:01:26 <koork> ASICS is hardware built to perform very specific operations really fast. RandomX requires performing MANY kinds of operations, and thus is hard to optimize hardware for
13:01:32 <koork> _I3^RELATIVISM: ^
13:01:42 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I undrstand what a ASICs is koork
13:01:42 <sech1> so ASIC for RandomX = CPU with on-chip memory instead of caches and optimized instruction set
13:01:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> My question is regarding RandomX in specific
13:02:28 <hyc> ^ he cannot understand the answer
13:02:31 <elliot[m]> Randomx was designed for CPU. Algo can be changed in case of ASIC. Rendering useless.
13:03:05 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I only started learning how to programme last year, if not i would just check source cde of randomx
13:03:18 <sech1> classic understanding of "mining ASIC" is not relevant for RandomX. You can't get 1000x speedup at all
13:03:21 <_I3^RELATIVISM> Imor asking how randomx is implemented
13:03:52 <_I3^RELATIVISM> what is it actual way to be "random etc"
13:04:01 <_I3^RELATIVISM> if you know what I mean
13:04:06 <hyc> then read the design doc
13:04:15 <hyc> you don't need to know how to program to read a document
13:04:17 * _I3^RELATIVISM ignore hyc
13:04:28 <_I3^RELATIVISM> geez I feel sorry for anonimal
13:04:42 <_I3^RELATIVISM> if this is what he had to endure
13:05:03 <hyc> ^ troll
13:05:11 <elliot[m]> Blocked... Reason: troll.
13:05:23 <_I3^RELATIVISM> funny when the people doing the troll call other such
13:05:40 <_I3^RELATIVISM> anyway wasted enough of my effort and time tying to explain myself
13:06:20 <tertiary> is there anyway i can approximate how much i will get from mining on certain hardware?
13:06:24 <_I3^RELATIVISM> if this is how the most part of the monero comunity reacts when putted on the spot, I fear for its future
13:06:54 <elliot[m]> Mining calculators. Google it.
13:06:55 <moneromooo> mining_status should tell you.
13:07:14 <moneromooo> It's expected average over a looong time though.
13:07:23 <_I3^RELATIVISM> I apreciate everybody that gave based arguments though and didnt try to make a mess of it of the discourse like moneromooo sech1  Inge-  among others
13:07:50 <_I3^RELATIVISM> just because of judgemnet or their own ego
13:08:38 <_I3^RELATIVISM> so cheers for valuing logic
13:09:10 <_I3^RELATIVISM> is sad you protected the wrong actors just because you know them, but I cant do much about that
13:09:14 * _I3^RELATIVISM is afk
13:10:07 <endor00[m]> <tertiary "is there anyway i can approximat"> https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining/calculator/xmr
13:10:22 <tertiary> ty
13:12:57 <Inge-> also .mine 38000 in #monero-pools
13:13:20 <manataw> for new blockchain when i have transfer > 3 like "transfer address1 amount1  address2 amount2 address3 amount3"  there is an error like
13:13:23 <manataw> transaction fee is not enough: " << print_money(fee) << ", minimum fee: " << print_money(needed_fee)
13:14:03 <manataw> "fee too low"
13:14:16 <manataw> if transfer < 3 everything work
13:14:37 <hyc> sounds like a known bug
13:15:02 <hyc> https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/7337
13:17:34 <hyc> ... pro tip, for a few minutes prior: when you walk into a new place and suddenly have to ask "why is everyone beng an asshole to me" it usually means you're the asshole.
13:17:55 <manataw> lets try his commit?
13:18:08 <hyc> yes, worth trying it out, report your results
13:23:48 <_I3^RELATIVISM> good resources for others interested, regarding the previous conversation before it was derailed by endor00 's ego:
13:23:48 <_I3^RELATIVISM> https://www.monerotalk.live/live-w-fluffy-pony-howardchu-at-monerokon-2019
13:23:49 <_I3^RELATIVISM> https://www.monerotalk.live/randomx-progress-w-howard-chu-and-sam-williams-of-arweave
13:23:58 <_I3^RELATIVISM> https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=vGMTrA6Nme
13:24:04 <_I3^RELATIVISM> https://github.com/tevador/RandomX
13:31:24 <hyc> yeah, that howard chu guy, he really knows this randomx stuff
13:39:20 <spedex> lol :D
13:43:35 <_I3^RELATIVISM> hyc I see that Howard chu guy also has a big ego
13:43:39 <_I3^RELATIVISM> hyc:
13:46:25 <manataw> ohh!!!
13:47:15 <_I3^RELATIVISM> just because I dont agree with your previous attitude that doesnt mean I dont apreciate you work on RandomX, but your previous comment was unecessary and it would have been better if you stayed silent, given it proves you are more concerned about a useleus fud than actual logic and productive discourse hyc
13:48:04 <jakoson0> Why does the Saviour of NASA take a group achievement award and present it as a proof of individual glory? twitter.com/hyc_symas/status/1203709575226183683
13:55:22 <manataw> hyc i confirm that #7337  work!!
14:07:49 <sethsimmons> `Attempt to get hash from height 1859411 failed -- hash not in db`
14:07:49 <sethsimmons> What would cause this? Never seen the error before.
14:27:29 <hyc> that's an odd one. it means the DB doesn't have a record for the hash of the block at that height
14:29:52 <_I3^RELATIVISM> thnk you hyc, good to see is not all you had. Have a good day
14:32:10 <sethsimmons> <hyc "that's an odd one. it means the "> Got it three times in logs recently on one node, but the node seems operational and healthy otherwise.
14:36:34 <Mochi101> sethsimmons, can you ask the daemon for that block info ( print_block 1859411 )
14:37:33 <hyc> or the blocks before and after it
14:59:25 <sethsimmons> docker exec monerod monerod print_block 1859411             2021-01-24 14:58:49.355 I Monero 'Oxygen Orion' (v0.17.1.9-release)                                                               Error: Unsuccessful -- json_rpc_request:                         ➜  ~ docker exec monerod monerod status                          2021-01-24 14:59:09.007I Monero 'Oxygen Orion' (v0.17.1.9-release)
14:59:25 <sethsimmons> Height: 2281578/2281578 (100.0%) on mainnet, not mining, net hash 2.08 GH/s, v14, 11(out)+55(in) connections, uptime 0d 0h 52m 4s
14:59:45 <sethsimmons> ```
14:59:46 <sethsimmons> docker exec monerod monerod print_block 1859411             2021-01-24 14:58:49.355 I Monero 'Oxygen Orion' (v0.17.1.9-release)                                                               Error: Unsuccessful -- json_rpc_request:                         ➜  ~ docker exec monerod monerod status                          2021-01-24 14:59:09.007I Monero 'Oxygen Orion' (v0.17.1.9-release)
14:59:46 <sethsimmons> Height: 2281578/2281578 (100.0%) on mainnet, not mining, net hash 2.08 GH/s, v14, 11(out)+55(in) connections, uptime 0d 0h 52m 4s
15:00:03 <sethsimmons> Mochi101: hyc ^
15:00:50 <sethsimmons> 1859412 has the same issue, unprintable
15:01:01 <sethsimmons> Everything before and after 11/12 seems fine
15:01:21 <moneromooo> Sounds like a borked DB page maybe.
15:01:31 <sethsimmons> AFK for a bit but happy to troubleshoot however is helpful later, and let me know if this is worthy of an issue.
15:01:56 <hyc> yeah, sounds like a corrupted page
15:02:55 <hyc> the height->hash table is pretty compact, so the records for those heights should all be contiguous
15:03:17 <moneromooo> Maybe the contents of that page might shed some light. ie, if thre's a "unbound: w00t" message in it.
15:03:28 <hyc> might try reading it in py-lmdb, seek to 1859410, then cursor_next thru the next 3 slots
15:04:05 <moneromooo> Did that bug get fixed ? The one with some unbound message written to the db...
15:04:08 <hyc> oh, yeah, that's always a possibility
15:04:13 <hyc> I thought it did
15:04:28 <hyc> I mean, we definitely updated libunbound once, because of that issue
15:04:40 <hyc> and it's been a while since anyone else has mentioned the problem
15:04:44 <moneromooo> Ah, so not fixed, but poked enough to hope.
15:05:28 <moneromooo> I see the "Attempt to get hash from height ... failed" report from tme to time.
15:05:51 <moneromooo> And usually just tell people to sync again.
15:06:05 <hyc> can't remember the last time I've seen it here
15:06:33 <moneromooo> Sounds hard to debug. strace can't see anyuthing wrong presimably since mmap.
15:07:34 <moneromooo> Maybe we could keep all mmapped regions without W, and only temporarily switch W upon a txn commit. That'd be slow, presumably...
15:08:04 <moneromooo> Then with luck we'd get a SIGBUS or SIGSEGV if something pokes.
15:09:12 <hyc> the mmap is always read-only
15:09:34 <moneromooo> Txn commits write via syscalls ?
15:09:35 <hyc> writes are only done using standard write syscalls
15:09:53 <hyc> except in db-sync-mode=fastest, which makes the mmap writable
15:10:16 <hyc> but I've only ever recommended people to use db-sync-mode=fast
15:11:03 <hyc> so the only way for that libunbound bug to happen is either it's writing to the DB fd itself, or it's writing to one of LMDB's write buffers
15:11:22 <moneromooo> Default seems fast, so I guess that kills the stray write to mmap region theory.
15:11:35 <hyc> we tried lots of tricks to detect stray writes to the DB fd and they never triggered
15:11:57 <moneromooo> Was it happening on at least two OSes ?
15:12:07 <hyc> ah, dunno
15:12:14 <hyc> I assumed just linux
15:14:00 <moneromooo> Maybe put pages without W on both sides of the write buffers, see if something ploughs into them.
15:14:14 <moneromooo> ala electricfence
15:14:56 <hyc> good idea...
15:16:27 <hyc> well. the overwrites we saw began exactly at the beginning of a page
15:16:50 <hyc> so there may not be any underrun to catch
15:17:39 <hyc> but I guess anything's possible if it's just scribbling over RAM
15:31:36 <Inge-> lol btcdragonlord is reality-challenged
16:11:02 <fluffypony> yeah
16:22:22 <jess> fluffypony: is this you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRC4Vk6kisY
16:22:54 <fluffypony> rofl
16:23:03 <fluffypony> it's perfect
16:24:03 <fluffypony> now I've got the song stuck in my head
16:24:28 <sech1> lol I'm glad I'm not on twitter and had no idea who it was until today https://twitter.com/btcdragonlord/status/1353359793776332800
16:25:29 <kayront> if you don't follow fluffypony on twitter you're losing 0.25% of the fun of the internet
16:25:50 <jess> where's fluffypony's twittor
16:26:05 <fluffypony> jess: twitter.com/fluffypony
16:26:08 <jess> whoa
16:26:12 <jess> smash that subscribe button
16:26:25 <fluffypony> sech1: he blocked me, guess he didn't like being muted
16:26:59 <sech1> you can always read tweets in private tab
16:27:18 <fluffypony> yeah I know
16:27:35 <diverter[m]> <fluffypony "yeah"> How dare you
16:27:57 <diverter[m]> He's trying to save you from Guantanamo
16:28:02 <kayront> for epic no javascript and moar privacy you can also use nitter.net
16:28:02 <diverter[m]> 😂😂😂
16:28:24 <fluffypony> diverter[m]: yeah that was such a bizarre take
16:28:39 <jess> is zcash related to zcoin
16:29:38 <fluffypony> jess: no - ZCoin became Firo
16:29:46 <jess> oh.
16:29:49 <fluffypony> after ZCash went after them for trademark infringement I think
16:29:54 <diverter[m]> <fluffypony "diverter: yeah that was such a b"> He's been doing this #NumberGoGuantanamo thing to a bunch of us Samourai users since we banned him for posting furry porn (you read that correctly) in Telegram chat
16:30:01 <fluffypony> or did ZCoin become Zen, I can't even keep tabs any more
16:30:22 <mmxxx[m]> firo used to zcoin
16:30:31 <mmxxx[m]> they got attacked recently
16:30:39 <diverter[m]> Saw that
16:30:54 <Inge-> diverter[m]: he also believes Trump won the election ...
16:31:05 <diverter[m]> Wasn't someone from that camp supposedly involved in the network attacks on XMR lately?
16:31:35 <diverter[m]> <Inge- "diverter: he also believes Trump"> How dare you too sir! Trump 20forever
16:31:40 <fluffypony> diverter[m]: from Firo? no, I like the Firo people, they're solid
16:31:46 <fluffypony> they spoke at MoneroKon about Lelantus
16:32:21 <diverter[m]> I get confused with all the names anymore, my bad lol
16:32:29 <diverter[m]> <fluffypony "they spoke at MoneroKon about Le"> Nice.
16:32:56 <diverter[m]> <diverter[m] "Wasn't someone from that camp su"> On a side note, my node been up for nearly 2 weeks straight now 🙌
16:33:30 <mmxxx[m]>  * firo used to be zcoin
16:36:52 <fluffypony> I was a little saddened that he used Sarah's thread to post that
16:48:30 * diverter[m] sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/JTXOwsPoNPGYlvkdRyQAHkZh/message.txt >
16:49:04 * diverter[m] sent a long message:  < https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/BcNaEsTPKbHXTLgjZeYxmKdw/message.txt >
16:53:00 <fluffypony> lol yeah
19:32:41 <selsta> 16:04 <moneromooo> Did that bug get fixed ? The one with some unbound message written to the db... <-- no it never got fixed but it also stopped showing IIRC
19:52:33 <h2017> hi
20:12:16 <koork[m]> I'm reading Zero to Monero v2 (https://web.getmonero.org/library/Zero-to-Monero-2-0-0.pdf). Could someone help me understand the last paragraph of page 22? (the 2^c coefficient in the EdDSA signature scheme)
20:57:29 <monerouser1144> Glad to see Ansible playbooks to provision Monero nodes ( https://github.com/lalvarezguillen/monerod-node-vps , https://github.com/mrWhiteCrow/monero-nodes-ansible )
21:01:53 <Mochi101> fluffypony, even Michael Saylor is saying it's possible to lose keys in a boating accident now: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/l42kuh/michael_saylor_people_can_go_fk_themselves_they/
21:21:26 <monerouser1144> It's almost unbelievable that Bitcoin is one of the more popular symbols at CNBC, alongside Apple, Tesla, NIO etc