Latest / Monero Talk / Merged Mining and Proof of Useful Work - Security Implications for Monero. W/ Francisco Cabanas | EPI 358
Transcript
- All right, Arctic, how's it going, Matt? Well, I'd be really, really busy. I'm actually working right now on the scaling for fortune membership groups. And that's actually a fairly, it's simple, but it's also got a lot of finances into it. So that's kind of what I was actually spending a lot of time in the MRL meeting today, discussing a lot of little subtleties of transaction sizes and verification times and a lot of community concerns. One of the things about future membership is that you've got these significant increases in verification time. And then there's a whole bunch of potential optimizations that can happen outside of consensus. So that's kind of the thing that I kind of really sort of get a grip on. So I'm in the process of basically finalizing that right now. That's been the big one. And then I've been also very busy with all of my business at home and renovations and the house I'm in right now, it's the middle of major renovations. I had to make sure that there was nobody working on it at the time so we don't have background noise. So I was kind of interested because I'm doing all these renders at the same time. So that's taking a lot of my time. So that's kind of what's happening. So yeah, things are going great with me. It's very, very busy. Awesome, man. All good things too. We are lagging a little bit, so we'll work with it. So I'll try not to interrupt you. I guess you try not to do the same. So let me go ahead and summarize here, or I'll propose what I think we could talk about then. It sounds like it'd be great to talk about what you have been working on with regards to the full chain membership proof scaling things. I'd love to chat with you a little bit about that and kind of just get your current take on where we are at with full chain membership proofs in terms of it actually going live. I'd love to hear your take on that. And then obviously I brought you on today because I was looking for somebody to talk about the recent quote-unquote mining attack we're seeing on Monero. Maybe you can frame it however you want to frame it, but there's this cryptocurrency called Cubic that is essentially running a Monero mining pool. So I'd like to get your take on that. There's a lot of controversy over this. I think they're trying to purposely drum up controversy, in my opinion, just so they could spread the word. And it's obviously being quite effective because here we are talking about it. But I do think it's important to cover the topic. And then I also want to get your take on what we're seeing with regards to Samurai Wallet and the Tornado Cash trials, which are both happening at the same time. Some big news broke today that there was essentially a settlement made in the Samurai case. So those are the three things I'm thinking of discussing, so I'll let you go ahead and respond to that. Let me know if you want to talk about anything else. Sure, that's fine. That looks good. Let's start with Cubic. I think that's the more interesting. Actually, the Samara one would be a good thing to start with because it's actually fairly straightforward in my view. Cubic is almost complex. My thoughts on this is really quite simple. When you have money transmission that is not exempted, then you can make, then the government can make a case for running a money transmission business that is not authorized. It's outside of the regulations. In the particular case of Samara wallet, the issue comes down not to the actual Bitcoin itself that was part of the transactions I was putting through the Whirlpool, but it actually comes down to the fees themselves, the fees that were paid to the operators of Samara wallet. That money transmission, the government has a case. That's my thought on the whole thing. There is where they can then get the settlement that they got because the typical exemption for money transmission that we see, otherwise technically known as the integral exemption in the United States, means that a business is doing something as you're buying goods or services, you're transacting. Whether you're doing it with cash or with Monero is really not relevant. What is relevant is that you're trading for goods or services and you're not engaging in exchange with sort of limited situations. For example, an example would be that you were to say, give somebody payment and cash for something. They don't have change, but they would send you the change in Monero. Mm-hmm. That could be an example of why it would be exempted, or you pay someone on Canadian dollars and you give them the change in U.S. dollars, those kind of things. But because of a strict exchange to an association, there may be many of those exemptions, but typically, it will be considered money transmission. And then you have to go through the regulated process. And there are the sort of decentralization exemptions that were sort of worked into various fencing guidances are referred to about decentralized cryptocurrencies. But the minute you have a centralized entity, like collecting a fee for what is body transmission related services, including, for example, adding privacy to a transaction, even though they don't take custody of the funds, then I can see the government making the case. So that's kind of my thought on it. I've always taken the point of view the minute the money, the fees are sent to the operator and they talk to the user, the government has a case on the fee. So that's how I see that one. Same thing with tornado cash, ultimately it comes down to the fee. Who's betting or collecting, et cetera. You can end up exempting the actual transmission itself of the cash that's going through the tornado and something like that, but you still have the fee and the fees where they can grab you off. I mean the fact that they're collecting a fee. Yeah, the transmission of the fee, to be specific, you have to transmit money to transmit the fee. Not even the fact that they're collecting the fees, the actual transmission of the fee. Well, also the fact that it's a profitable, it's a business where they're profitable. Yes, it's a company we're selling a fee for But you're saying that that's how they're actually... Yes. But so it's a money transmission in the fee, right? The fee is actually money transmission And it seems like in this case, what it really came down to was that basically they're saying that they had knowledge of the fact that their services were used by people to launder money, that they had knowledge. That's what they're pleading guilty to that count. Are they creating guilt as you are learning transmission or are they playing guilty to any money laundering account? I don't, sir, I wouldn't get that. It's just money trends. If you just manage transmission, it doesn't require any kind of criminal activity, or illicit activity. The allegations that they made, because they were going for money laundering, and they were going for, it's a different story. But the issue is, if it's strictly money transmission, what they pled to, then it's just basically what I said. It has no relevance as to whether or not it's legal or not. Now, that could have been argued, and maybe in sentencing, maybe something like that. But I used to see, as the case the government has made, it's just a straight money transmission, except by understanding what they pled guilty to. Okay. And then so the question is, how does this now affect the space moving forward? Is there essentially new law that's coming out of this case? I think so. Space law. I don't think actually when you get down to it, it's no, you can look at the 2013 Vincent guide and it's ideal like over 12 years ago and that was actually set back there and it comes down to the same example issue because it's a question of whether there's money transmission in and I think things like the clarity I could probably clarify that but it's not really gonna change the reality simply says okay if you're engaging you go to legislation that if you're engaging in running a relay load or mining or whatever that you're exempt but the actual guidance for 2013 from Vincent essentially how to discuss all these issues is it decentralized if it's decentralized as some exceptions if it's not decentralized well what is going on then then you have a somebody who's an administrator somebody who's running a business money services business and then there's money transmission and then you have to do KYC and on and on and on so what the minute this is why I think we'll say the minute it's even a pre-mite a knee in your mind a founders reward then they have an end so you have to keep your hands out of the tail in the old-fashioned sense of the word and in the project or whatever you're doing donate it's fine Yeah, it's pretty crazy with the timing too, because that tornado cache case is happening at the same time. And they're about to have a ruling on that case, which could have then set precedent essentially for or been considered before the ruling was made in the samurai case. And it looks like they rushed to make the settlement before that ruling would come out. I mean, the question back comes down to whether or not, but I think the same fee argument can be made there. I don't want to prejudge it, but I get a feeling that the argument the government has is that money transmission of the fee is actually a strong one. That's my argument, but we'll see what happens there. I mean, there was a venue issue in this one that was alluded to that they can't, I think the government managed to overcome. But ultimately, if all they've played is some money transmission without any of the money laundering stuff, then it's a third of the fee. I mean, so in the rage article, which I don't know if you took a look at that, I mean, they're fantastic, the rage. We had a little lead section. She spoke at Monero Topia last year remotely, but they're saying Hill and Rodriguez pled guilty to having engaged in a conspiracy to knowingly transmitting funds on behalf of the public that were derived from criminal activity under account two of the indictment. So, yeah, my understanding is that they're admitting guilt to that. Okay. So they knew that the funds that were transmitted were associated. Okay. So they are claiming, so they're trying to, yeah, but they're not pleading, they're just pleading to transmitting funds and not pleading to anyone. He said that he came to know that some people, proceeds came from criminal activity and he continued samurai wallet operations and marketed the service to the public, even while knowing that criminals were used. It could be an act of any circumstance. That's what they're arguing there. That could be an act of any circumstance, but I'm arguing without the knowledgeable activity that goes through the case. Because of just the money transmission on it. So, but you're saying it's not really creating any new case law for us as far as you could tell in terms of worse for, for these, you know, God. Sorry. If you argue money transmission, then you can say, okay, they can acknowledge criminal activity as an aggravating element, which is satisfied, but you still have to argue money transmission. And the money transmission, in this case, has to be the fee. The fee, they can argue. That's what I'm getting at. Mmhmm. So yes, the government's going to say they're going to make the case of sentencing. They're going to make a case. I can see that, but they're not putting the money on, which you could argue for if you can show the criminal activity arguments and all of that, as to that smile on this gentleman. So, but. Well, they're they're saying they're saying that that you know that FinCEN guidance that basically got thrown out of the case Right for whatever reason it wasn't it wasn't considered, right? Well, what is an exciting example? us. We're surprising, but it really exempted samurai. It's like a black and white reading of the guidance. No, no, no, because this is the point that I'm getting at. No, no, what happened was Samurai had asked Fincen, had officially asked Fincen, I think. According to filings, prosecutors had contacted Fincen ahead of bringing charges against the developer to inquire about the validity of charging. They had filed a motion, basically they said a mixer like Samurai that does not take custody of the cryptocurrency by possessing the private keys, which strongly suggests that Samurai is not acting as a money service business. So Fincen said this in a response. They had officially stated that a mixer like Samurai that does not take custody of the cryptocurrency by possessing the private keys, which strongly suggests Samurai is not acting as a money service business, but that the court then didn't have to consider that document. But that doesn't answer the question of the fee. Mmhmm. Like, if the slum is just totally free, and there was no fee involved. Do you love coffee and Monero as much as we do? Consider making gratuitous.org your daily cup. Pay with Monero for premium fresh beans and if you like what you taste, send a digital cash chip directly to the farmers that made it possible. Proceeds help us grow this channel, gratuitous and Monero. Okay, yeah, I mean, it doesn't even show up. But my point is that what Vincent said is not necessarily being challenged here because it doesn't apply to the fee. The fee was transmitted. Right, you're saying nobody... Yeah, it's me... Yeah, it's... Yes, so they can argue on the fee alone, that's all they can argue. Because what they can say is, yes, there's no money transmission with respect to the actual, or there is money transmission, but there's no custody, so there's no money transmission because the transmission is being done by the customers, but the trouble they get into is they may be charged a fee, there's transmission on the fee. And that's a related service to another non-custodial transmission, what they didn't take custody of. So even though they didn't transmit the Bitcoin in the world, and according to the Finzen argument, they still transmitted the fee. That's the point I think of the court picked up on. Yeah, okay. But what they ended up getting them on though is a second count, which was basically that the developers continue to be charged. The developers are charged under another part of money transmission law, which criminalizes the knowing transmission of the listed proceeds. So they're really getting them on that. Well, yeah, but that again, you have to have transmission because the fee is still being processed or else it's a process. It is a portion of the fee that was generated from a list of source, and that money was transmitted. Right. If you take the fee out of the equation, you fundamentally change the case. That's basically what I'm saying. And I don't know if you saw, but where they got the knowing from was basically tweets that they had tweeted out saying that we would love if Russian oligarchs started using Samurai Wallet to essentially love for their money laundering. Yeah, that's pretty crazy. That's what they're pinning it on, some tweets, right? it up but it's it but it's what I'm saying I like it With Tornado Cash, they were putting it on the shirt that he was wearing, the t-shirt he was wearing at a cryptocurrency event, which was like a depiction of a laundry machine and the Tornado Cash logo, admitting that it's used for laundering money. It's pretty wild and scary. But you still have to have that money transmission. But again, in the case of tornado cash, you have fees involved. And then you also have the argument that they were making cases that the thing was a business firm has to invest as well. What is the return to the investors? Yeah. So this is what I'm getting at. I mean, if you take the fees out of the equation, I think you fundamentally change the situation. Because it's once improving that arguing that a client joins money transmission by the person who is putting the thing together. But what you can argue is that they got paid a fee to do together. So therefore the fee is for money transmission related services, as it is also money transmission. What do you think of XMR Bazaar? We don't take a fee on any transactions. All transactions are made. Honestly, I wouldn't even try to look at something like that. Honestly, I wouldn't. I would, I just have caught on vice of them. It's just I don't have the legal expertise and wouldn't even be allowed. Okay. Yeah, I mean. that that's that's so specific yeah because I get uh you know it's it's uh I guess what I'm saying is, to me, we need to worry that XMR Bazaar could be targeted, given what we're seeing, what happened now with Samurai Wall. I personally think it's completely different. There's no analogies between- I don't know where to start with it. Yeah. Okay. My understanding is things were supposed to get more lenient. And now we have the clarity act that's passing. My understanding is that there's language in that clarity act that basically codifies that we can true decentralized cryptocurrencies are to be regulated as, you know, essentially as I had a 19 thousand with the fingers on my hands Yeah Bitcoin Dogecoin Right, Monero. Let's go to the other one here. Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, Monero, and I think they'll go down to they're going to go really low after mine. I think Bitcoin is the next one. Did you put a theory about that? Ethereum is very interesting because Ethereum, I would argue the original launch was definitely a security. But what actually, if you look at the hallway, the oranges that were grown in that, in the hallway test, they're not securities. And the ether is actually the oranges. So what they did in Ethereum is they created a security, which was to create the Ethereum and then had an entity deal of this and do it in about a six month period before the regulators figured out what had happened. I think the thing was shut down and Ethereum is now not a security. It sounds to me like a really sort of summary, a bunch of lawyers got together and kind of structured it in this interesting way. But when you really looked at it, I mean, I think, wait a minute, Ethereum was not security as the as near as the origins and how it. in it. And the security is the last promise to create the origins. Same as in the highway. But yes, that's what I'm saying, though, right? So we have the Clarity Act, which is once it fully passes, will protect these true cryptos and make sure they're not classified as securities and that the developers and users of them can't be considered essentially money transmitters, right? Like nodes can't be labeled money transmitters. The Lightning Network essentially can't be labeled them. I'm not so sure about the lightning there, I'm not so sure about the lightning there, well that was- I get but what I'm just saying is the clarity act felt like it was removing things the right direction, right? We were now saying I'm thinking that what it's doing is clarifying what should have been the case in getting rid of sort of the aggressive over-regulation that we've seen before. But I don't think it fundamentally changes something, what is a money transmitter or it isn't. But it does really protect the true decentralized cryptocurrencies from these kind of issues. is basically saying the Bank's secrecy act doesn't apply to these. Oh, they apply all right. It just doesn't apply to the, no, no, it applies to the money itself. It just doesn't apply to a miner and it doesn't apply to a node operator and doesn't apply to developers that generate opposite software. But the minute you have a founder's reward, you'll buy signatures all over the place. The minute you have a pre-mine, you'll back again to the bank seekers here. The minute you have a, that's what I'm getting at. It's not, it's very few currencies that have done this. Like I said, you have to fund it entirely through, basically you can fund it entirely through donations. And what's interesting is in some of these cases, it's a fork or something that could have been considered a money transmitting issue. In the case of Monero, that's the case of Litecoin and Dogecoin indirectly and not Bitcoin Cash. But again, you're getting into these situations. So for example, you fork something, it seems not compliant, but now it's open source code and you change it, you fix it. And now, well, you end up with sort of interest. Did I just lose you? No, I'm here. I'm here. I'm just me. Yeah, yeah. Okay. No, no, that's but that's um, that's not what I was It's uh, I don't think it fundamentally changes things I think it clarifies things which is actually why they call it a clarity act in the United States But it's uh, and maybe it's more lenient in many ways with respect to things that could be securities or a borderline That's where the leniency occurs But the true and it makes it clear something like Monero is not a security before it was done ad hoc and now it's done Mm-hmm based on yeah, yes, I think it's definitely a positive All right, so I But before I leave this topic, the one issue that is important for Monero that's still pending, and this is the biggie, is this business of the blockchain surveillance and the Stirling Rough case, which unlike all these other cases, it's actually a who did it case. Where the dispute is who actually did it rather, well, what's the thing illegal? And that one is a biggie. That one is a biggie in there. That's their appeal. That's going to be the big one, I think, for Monero, my opinion. and why is that the big one for Monero? Explain. Because if it is proven, show an appeal, that blockchain surveillance is not valid, is inaccurate, the whole argument for delisting Monero all over the world is gone right out of the water. Which is the traceability argument. Because what you're saying is the traceability is unreliable. Then you can argue that you need privacy to protect yourself from false accusations. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. So that's a big one because here's the issue that the whole argument in the EU and also in the United States and in Britain and in Japan and in Korea, all these places for delisting money from exchanges, they say you cannot do blockchain surveillance. If you show the blockchain surveillance doesn't stand up in court, which is an issue in the Stolignoff case, then you undermine the very argument for delisting money from centralized exchange. It started right where you are in New York because if you listen to the argument of a fellow from Coinbase and he was saying, well, it has to be reasonable. You have to have a reasonable anti-money monitoring program. But if you are reasonable, if your anti-money monitoring program is based on surveillance that's unreliable, that is not reasonable. It's dangerous. That's dangerous. Exactly. In fact, the argument is that you're turning around and actually facilitating the very crimes that you're trying to prevent because you're going to turn around and implicate innocent people. So, it's a very, very different argument. The other interesting thing, I'll actually ask you that interview, which is a three-year-old interview, is of course, that Monero will have proper view keys after a fortune of membership proof. So, even though it's a big, it's really a fungibility upgrade as opposed to a privacy upgrade, and we're going to score everything primacy. But what it does is not only does it totally remove the initial surveillance, but it also provides a tool that an exchange can legitimately use to verify the identity of who there's any money to. And that is actually combined with a good resolution of the selling of keys. So, I think the selling of keys is really important because it puts projects surveillance on trial. None of these other ones did that. There was no debate at what was done. It was who did it, but it was not who did the debate. In the Steringhoff case, there's no argument of the illegality of the actual ... Although it's some arguments early that it preceded the actual change of the rules, because it's so early. So, the allegations, so there's issues there. But they come down to these traces where they're attributing current arrival there. And that's where ... And the Daubert Orange analysis, and of course, there's venue issues. There's a ton of other stuff in there. But that could exonerate ... But a reversible appeal of that is going to be really dramatic. and questioning the validity of chain analysis as part of that appeal, correct? That's exact. Oh, absolutely. The crux of it. One of the major issues is that Daubert, I don't know if you know what Daubert is. You put me through with the term. Well, it's a Daubert or as you know. And that was really the question. Okay. But yeah, so that's why that is so significant for Monero. That's interesting. I mean, obviously I know we've been talking about it because you were part of that and whatnot and we're interested for all these other reasons, just about chaining, but now then realizing, ah, yes, what that can mean for Monero, it basically comes out that chain analysis is ineffective. That's really interesting. I don't think a lot of people have been thinking about it that way. So. That's the key point. And it's bigger even in the EU than in the United States, even those in the United States. Mm-hmm. because in the EU they codified it into the actual legislation. It's very vaguely worded, so it opens all sorts of questions of issues around European Convention on Human Rights. Because if many of you show it's unreliable, you open up a harness. So we're at almost 300 live viewers, 280 live viewers, we're 30 minutes in. A lot of people are excited about this episode for a topic we haven't even broached yet, but we're gonna have fantastic, yes, cubic. So let's get to that, let's move on to that. And then after we can talk about the work you've been doing with regards to full chain membership group, scale A and all that jazz. Cubic is, first of all, I don't know if people are familiar with the concept of proof of useful work, so we might cover that slightly. The idea behind proof of useful work is that you verify that you've done some useful computing that has a purpose as a way of actually verifying your proof of work. So you have to show that you've done this computing to mine the block. Theoretically, the idea is that you do some use of computing that's totally unrelated to cryptocurrency, and they guys had a whole idea of AI training and stuff like that. Well, it turns out that the revenue you get from this AI training stuff, the market values a lot less as simply mining Monero. So what they did is they turned the proof of useful work and said, mining Monero is useful work. So we're going to prove that you've mined a certain amount of data, a certain amount of work in the Monero blockchain, and now that's the useful work. Well, exactly that's the whole concept of proof of useful work on its head, because if that's the issue, why don't you just merge mine? Because effectively that's what they've done. They've turned the proof of useful work into a merge mine with Monero. Right. And they're not able to implicit and that they're using it as a marketing scheme then to kind of get the word out also on cubic. Well, then it's a whole bunch of other issues, but what essentially Cubic has been turned into. But now let's see what I guess there is. Why are you doing a merch mine? And then, which is a smaller chain, or a bigger chain, I mean the most extreme example is Namecoin and Bitcoin, which is still going along. Namecoin is still merged mine with Bitcoin. Phenomenal security. This is a little extra, but merch mining, namecoin is merged mine with Bitcoin. And that's how a merch mining works. Another interesting example, of course, is Dogecoin or Namecoin. Originally, Dogecoin was a weaker system, but Dogecoin is merged mine with Litecoin. Now Taryon Monero was designed as a merch mine with Monero. Right. So again, what happens with merge mining is, if it's done properly, is the strength is both shades, typically the benefit from each other because now you have the effective hash rate of both of them rather than just one. And it's a great way for a weaker chain to sort of get protection from the bigger chain. So that's merge mining. Now, what we then look at is a more interesting attack. So now what you do is you look at the smaller of the two merge mine chains. You 51% attack it, or keep control of it. And then you lose the incentive of the merge mine to move hash rate on the target chain, in this case would be Monero, or Monero slash Terry, into the hands of the attacker. So what I looked at the thing is that the first thing you have to do is you have to gain control of cubic. So cubic has to be compromised and essentially controlled by a single attacker. Well, the developers did that. And if you look at the mining structure of cubics, like 90% controlled by one pool. So you get abstract a lot of the details of this and look at the whole or the whole things. What you have right now is a merge mine coin where what that's being compromised to the point where they can control the hash rate. And so then what they're trying to do is incentivize the honest Monero miners into mining with that because they're going to get this additional return from the cubic. But they also have to make sure that the cubic itself is not decentralized because all the other Monero miners going there and start mining cubic and the cubic is readily available in the marketplace. Well, from what I understand, and again, there's a lot of research in this and more research are you doing it, the better. The cubic is not readily available as locks were a period of time. And they kind of focus in such a way, or at least a threatened to focus in such a way that you can't, anybody can't just go ahead and mine the stuff. So it's not really centralized at all. So awareness of what they're getting is a big because it looks to me like the cubic is going to be all locked up. And then the variant, which is my general solution to these things is kind of out of affection. Now you were around in 2018, you remember the attack by big day, the A6, the Monero A6. So what happened there is they got up to about 90% of the hash rate. And when it was fucked off the Monero network, literally in a hot, because what happened there, they were like blocks were ticking a couple of hours or something for the blocks to reset at the new hash rate. And so the output of this to chase was Monero, the proper Monero. And then there was this other chain called Monero original and Monero classics. The same chain, but it went by two tickets, one was XMO and one was X. And it was primarily traded on hit PTC and trade on it. And he says, well, I think it's quite interesting because the community did not do anything about this, ignore it. But a minority and a significant minority of the community, about six, 20 to 30% of the community, myself included, one of them decided, no, no, we're going to extract this Monero original and literally we're going to dump it. And so what I did is I went ahead and those two places were traded and the, and it was hit PTC was one of them. And that's where BitMate was literally supporting the market value of XMO, XMC with Bitcoin and the millions of dollars of the Bitcoin. And the thing will happen, the slow me down is that to go through any, uh, an AML NYC, the slow me down with AML NYC for about 10, 15 days, that they saw it. So I didn't get as much as I would have wanted, but literally once they went through that process, I ended up with the XMO and I converted it to Bitcoin and extracted it out. I'm sure it's the same here, and so people would say, yeah, it was very, very interesting. The interesting part about it, that it was converted into Canadian dollars, and then I purchased, with a lot of those proceeds, I purchased a house I'm sitting here right now. So that's why I talk about feeding it to the bears. You take the thing and you feed it to the bears. So the bear rate, essentially. And people were saying that I never see something so brutally sold. But then it continued. I wasn't the only one. There's quite a few people that did that. So I think something that was basically brought to abilities, by the people that actually make money, by dumping the money. Like literally. Now, if you want to dump large quantities of money or sell it, you're going to have to do KYC. Yes. If you got to deposit the proceeds for selling large amounts of money or into the bank, you're going to need KYC if the numbers are higher. So that's kind of what slowed me down. But this is what I'm saying. So I think in case of cubic, they tried to prevent that kind of an attack. The other thing that could happen is they do provoke a fork of more error itself, which is, I think it's unlikely, because they don't really have the hash for it, what I could tell. Then, and they're getting desperate, they're renting hash power to try to fight money that way. But what they have to do is they're going to incentivize the existing Monero miners to take this, go through that chain and take this cubic, which may or may not be working, and maybe locked up and blah, blah, blah, blah. That's what they have to do. If they open up the cubic, then of course they open themselves to the type of attacks that I'm describing, which is essentially you would turn around and sell it. But again, they put delays and stuff like that in there. And then it comes down to the best, in my opinion, the best solution to this is actually awareness. And people need to be aware of the sub and study the thing, try to, I mean, I spent time figuring out there's a lot of people on the morale. It is a legitimate threat in the sense that it can be dangerous if the people aren't aware, if the people aren't made aware that there is a potential attack back to Monero here, and there is a threat, and this threat is real. And if enough people realize that, then this attack would fail. So what would happen? the attack sorry how does that work how do it how does that worth the attack knowing that the attack is Well, because essentially what you want to do is you want to prevent existing one-year-old miners to move to that cubic... Yeah, but I mean so but how do you prevent them from following the money, right? Well the question is that the money isn't worth the trouble and there's no money that may not be there. Yeah so the money is not worth the trouble and that the money may not be there anywhere because the cubic is locked up and by the time the cubic is released the thing is crashed in value. Right. to trade for their original today, you're not going to get a lot of money for it. It's still trading, by the way, it still exists, but it's there. But it's a sort of a race to the Europe. I mean, what I went through when they're original is basically a race to the exits. And I was not first out. So those who get out first, they get the money, the rest is worth less. Yeah, I I never I don't think he even sold any any of that I've even tried to convince Bitcoin maxis to sell their Bitcoin cash from Monero I've done that and they kind of think to be there what you know I've been trouble of extracting the Bitcoin cash is selling it for whatever. I've tried that. It's a Bitcoin maxis It's quite interesting because I hate Bitcoin cash But I mean my point is that what the that the manure If they don't raise out to the excess faster enough, you're not gonna get anything So so if you say keep the way and get the pubic out whatever the lock times are whatever Then you you probably end up with something as worthless. It's all worth the trouble So that's the argument basic and then they have desperate enough to think it all up like fools The other thing is that they completely Destroyed their entire argument of proof of useful work And if you read all that the stuff about why is there what I do and the environmental consequences and so on and so forth and so that there's a lot of elements of a proof of work that people Don't understand and but in essence this is the case of cubic and we want a little Complination of work is that people don't look at the externalities that in particular don't buy the heat I'm just gonna comment on the Bitcoin mine in Texas You've heard that one why the neighbors are complaining about the noise No, I have not heard about that. Okay, so what you have is, if you're going to mine big, and I love the minus 40 rule. The 40 rule works in Celsius, and so what you have is, if the temperature is 40 Celsius, the heat is a lot more worthless waste product that you want to get rid of. If it's minus 40 Celsius, it's a valuable commodity, and that's useful work. Fahrenheit, the minus 40 is the same. The plus 40 is 104. So, if you want to look at it in Fahrenheit, if it's minus 40, the heat is a lot more valuable than if it's plus 104. Texas in the summer is hot, and what people in the United States call triple digit temperature. So now you've got all these warehouses full of ASICs, they're producing a humongous amount of energy, and then you need all these air conditioners to cool the ASICs, and all the fires to cool the air conditions, and then it makes an incredible amount of noise. And that's why they have this problem with noise on this massive Bitcoin farm in Texas. If you move the thing to Alaska, or you're close in Canada, then you don't have the noise, and the neighbors aren't any corner, so people don't look at these externalities. The argument that they make in Texas, of course, is it's a value of the electricity, because the stabilizing the grid by using electricity has no value, or very little value, because there's a variance in demand, and Texas is very vulnerable to that, because they don't trade with the rest of the North American grid, grids actually, because there's three separate ones, apart from Texas. But that's kind of the issue, so these externalities and proof-of-work are not taken into consideration. And so the proof-of-work is the environmental argument, we're doing something useful, and then we're going to... But now they turn it on its head by mining one area, well, wait a minute, if that's useful, why do you need proof-of-work in the first place? Why are you just merged by one area? So the credibility is short of what they're doing, completely. And then they're saying, okay, we're going to do this, and so... But what I'm saying, the key part of this, the important one, is people need to realize that there is a potential threat, there are about, I think, somewhere around six or seven percent of the Monero capitalization rate, and the effective hash rate is probably higher than that, I think some numbers are right, but I haven't seen actually exact numbers on that, because their emission rate is relatively a lot higher than Monero's. So maybe somewhere like over 10 or 15 percent, or 20 percent. So it's unclear what they're going to do, but this is why you have to look at it, if you convince enough people to try to get the cubic, even though it's not going to be there, then you could actually launch the attack, or at least be a nuisance, or whatever. Like you said, but you said you're banking on Monero miners not buying into this enough whatever miners are buying into, I need some will. And if they do will and they get their hands on the cubic, they sell it. That's the other one. But there is definitely a risk. If people move into it in mass, a, they're not going to get the returns in cubic, even if they wait for them. Let alone when the cubic is moved down the road, there's a huge risk there. And they jeopardize the model of community by doing that. So the return isn't really there or it looks like it's there. But you have to convince them, you have to make the case that this thing is an issue. And there is a potential real threat to what? Because it is. I mean, it could cause disruption. I mean, the price is down already too significantly. So that's something people need to keep an eye on. It's interesting. So I mean when will we know when we'll even know if things are playing out? wash the hash rates. Yeah, we need to be watching all the variable hash rates. They're trying to hide what they're mining. I mean, there's a lot of discussion in MRL today on here. There's threats in Monero mining already on it. A lot of the issues they're trying to hide their blocks. So it's sort of obvious, but there's enough smart people out there. The other thing to understand about the Monero community is I cannot predict how the Monero community is going to respond to this. I just don't think that it's going to be good for cubic. I mean, I don't think a lot of people are going to predict it, that some people decided the way to deal with the bit main list to dump the money. But I mean, you know what I'm saying. I mean, how do you predict what people are going to do? So in a decentralized community, if you attack it, the response is also going to be centralized. And that means that different people are going to do different things. Some things are going to work. Some things are going to work. And some things, it's a bit of here and there, but eventually the whole thing, if there's awareness that there's a real threat, then a lot of the Monero miners are going to stay away. Some that agree you might try it, but maybe they'll try selling the cubic. You need a strong consensus to move over to the spool for the attack to work. And the more you talk about it, the more people study the thing, because a lot of people are saying, learn about it, spend the time and study how it works. That's very useful. But then you educate yourself on it and then you can educate other people. This episode of Monero Talk is actually part of the solution. Yeah, people understanding the issue, but I mean, I feel like people are going to just follow the dollar and incentives, right? I mean, are we telling people now that they should be, I mean, people, oh, we should have been trying to mine at home, but is that like, should there be a rally call for more people to start turning up? No, yeah, turning on your mind is a good thing. Absolutely. I mean we always want that rally call to be there, but the fact is You got journeys on your mind. It's a good thing. Even if you can't get the cash rate, you had to say turning on your mind is a good thing. Absolutely. That's what happened actually in debate, man. Everybody was turning on miners, even though they had no hope. So that's the good rally call. Staying with pools that are not messing out. Staying with the pools that are normal, whatever pools, whether P2P or Centralizer, staying with those pools, that works. And basically, and if you decide to get your hands on the cubic somehow, sell it. That's the off. Because I think it was going to, that's the bad rate approach. in every little mind and then dumps it. Yeah, but I think they're trying to prevent by locking it for periods of time and all these years, which actually makes it a lot That's a prize why do you do you know why this guy is doing it like why Monero? Why did he choose? I don't know It seems like he had the history with Monero too. I'm seeing people saying that he was like an OG in the Monero in the early days of Kryptonote or something. Monero is the highest CPU coin. For each way of mining, there's a dominant player, mostly by ASIC. The highest CPU coin right now is Monero. So if you want to replace both of you so we're computing with a mining, that's the one that you would pick. Is that haters from crypto? Well, could well be. That could be a theory. There was a lot of history there. The crypto node, well, that's a perfect example. I mean, we were talking about the first thing about FinCet. Crypto node had a, something like that, 83 pre-mine, 83% pre-mine, supposedly disguised as an inia mine, which it didn't work. That was supposed to happen in the DLM markets that nobody's heard about crypto node and bytecode on the dark network. So they basically faked a coin in the dark net that didn't exist, forged the blockchain to make it look like it existed in 2012. There's an entire Bitcoin threat of this issue and then called it bytecoin and then they started releasing it where they're only mined like about 83% of it. And that's what Monero's forked from and they tried to attack it in 2014 and failed. And they used the same attacker that I thought Litecoin was forked from, I think it was Tenebri. So it was a history. And then the people were putting also the, what do you call them, the certain blocks that are sort of locked in place, there's a term for that, that were put in place for this, I'm trying to remember. But anyway, the attack took on it in 2014 was tried and it failed and Monero's came on a lot stronger. It's now dominated the entire privacy. If you look at Monero, like say in 2015 or 2016, there was money in the dominant privacy coin. That was taking privacy completely off. And now we're pretty much even threatening, you know, in that way, that's our top 20. Sorry, that's our top 30. So we're like 25 as a public market card. And if it were not for this proxy surveillance, Monero would be way higher than it is right now. It's interesting that we're also dealing with this cubic. You know, it's like Monero gets hit and attacked in so many different ways all the time. It's pretty incredible, actually. But that's because it's good at what it does, but the reason you go after and it could well be that the guy behind the cubic doesn't like whatever, it's just originally the bike ride developers because they were basically proven wrong with them. And of course, Krypton, when in its original design, and maybe I'll floor that next question, does not work from a scaling perspective or from a security perspective. You can show that. It's very straightforward. So Krypton has a massive failure because he would have died on this fee issue long before he would have got to the stage anyway. And the first person correctly pointed that out was Greg Maxwell, who said that Krypton was insecure. He understood that. Back in 2014. It. That's all I need almost- It's a whole other story, but if you actually get down to to the history of Bitcoin as well So this is why the the big block isn't Bitcoin don't have an argument. It's just the small brokers. I don't have one So, just to kind of back on to the topic, though. So with Gyrijic, we're saying this could potentially cause some disruption. Do you see this as an issue with random acts in general, this attack exists, as opposed to in Bitcoin with ASICs, arguably, this type of attack doesn't exist or is not? I mean, first of all, I think the cubic has totally destroyed the concept of approval of useful work. If you were thinking of Bitcoin, you're probably thinking, well, can I have that Bitcoin cash with ASICs? And the answer is very easy to do because there's tons of Bitcoin ASICs floating around that could be used to end up Bitcoin cash. So you can 51% of that Bitcoin cash go easy because you've got the same ASICs as ... So I don't ... I mean, the specifics ... I mean, one that makes this really, really long a success. I mean, it's a real ... Yeah, but is this a weird Well, I mean, you can say we need a CPU mining, but there's other attacks you could do. You could do the same attack in an ASIC coin. If you go in there with a significantly large, smaller coin that is using the same ASIC, do a merge bind, and then compromise the smaller coin to attack the larger one. That's essentially what they've done. It's not specific to CPUs. What's specific to CPUs is that they repurpose proof of use for work. But the essence of the attack, which is to control the smaller merge bind coin and use it to attack the larger one, is what it applies as well with GPUs or ASICs. Because what they're doing is, there's two phases. First of all, they took the proof of use for work and turned it in its head, literally, because if it's so, the whole point of it turned it into a merge bind by another name. And then they compromised the merge bind coin and the user to attack the larger chain. We need to do that on an ASIC. I mean, theoretically, someone could compromise big coin cash and then turn it on big coin. Theoretically, it might be possible if big coin cash was significantly strong. But big coin cash is not designed to merge bind with big coin. Do you think, um, I mean, hopefully maybe this causes more people to, to start mining or to using, at least using P2 pool, right? I think P2 pool really hasn't taken off. Many of us have called off the regular Monero pools that have been binding Monero, not playing this game of perfectly fine foods. All you do to our mining is not about B2 pool versus centralized pools. It's about making sure that cubic doesn't get that majority cash rate. So whether we do it, the other thing you can do, start if you're not merch mining dairy, start merch mining dairy, because that's going to push the hash rate off. That's the other thing you can do. But do we, do we see like, I mean, could it, could other coins potentially start doing this also like kind of using the same, well, and then maybe that becomes the equalizer is that you have other things now trying this as well. Well, the basic issues that merge mining done properly actually strengthens both coins. So you have to start, you have to distinguish by the coin, attack it, and then turn it as a weapon against a larger chain. That's what they've done here. So you've got in principle, you know, attack both coins, actually it's bigger than the light coin, and then use it to attack 51% attack it and then try to collect the coin with the same one. But the basic problem they've got, and it's a big problem, is that you've got to convince people that you have an actual market advantage, that the dollar is actually there, when in fact the dollar might not really be there because it's hidden in those sorts of other ways. So the issue comes down, are you really going to make money out of this thing? Because by the time it gets a cubic out and everything, is it going to be worth everything? So that's the other issue there. people are saying 51% by Sunday. I don't know how true any of that is. Well, I mean, they're threatening. I mean, but the other parameter phenomenon people are seeing is that they're trying to rent hash, and then you see fluctuations in the Monero hash rate, and this is that turning it on and off. There was a very interesting analysis on Monero mining, where they studied this cubic thing. My feeling is that more people learn about cubic, how it functions, what it's doing, and so on. The better it's going to be for Monero. This guy is saying Cupid is using their miners to train their AI and then with their superfluous power they are mining Monero. That is proof of use for it. You're saying no. Well, I mean, they're renting and it looks like they're renting hash rate. They're trying to cover up the fact that that surplus, but then if they have, but here's the problem. If that's the case, then there's no demand. It's more cost effective to mine Monero than the value of their AI training. The fact that mining Monero tells me that the AI training isn't worth what they claim it's worth. There is more useful, as far as the market is concerned, to set follow the dollar question. The market is saying that the Monero mining is more useful than their AI training. It's all pretty crazy. I mean, that's right. It's that's what the market is saying. Why would it be buying you a little? Right. Yeah. That was a great value in mining Monero. XMR family tipped $4.20. Monero will prevail. Monero is a force of nature at this point, so very curious to see how this all works out. I would agree with that. Like how it would prevail, I have no clue because it's a decentralized community and people are going to come up with different ways of dealing with this and there's a lot of very smart people there and they're going to figure out ways and those decisions, there's the awareness of the issue, it's way more important at this point in time than, see this is the kind of question, it's just what I just saw here. Yeah, yeah, drug-dying was aspect. No, no, no. I don't agree that's a solution because you gotta attack an A-thick just as well the same way. Yeah, just to clarify, he's asking, is it somehow possible to make Monero mining be made into a 50% ASIC, 50% random extra for work protocol, would there be benefit there? Well, you could, but the question is, then you have the centralization of the ASX, and it doesn't solve the problem, because you could still attack it the same way. If you merge mine and another coin with it, and you attack an emerging mine coin, it doesn't matter what kind of distribution of crash power you have, if you're compromising the emerging mine, and then using the emerging mine to attack the main chain, that's not going to solve the problem. How about if you're like Zano and you're hybrid proof of stake. I know Andre of Zano is saying, you know, he claims that Monero will one day become proof of stake. Well, I've always said, I mean, I've always said is that people argue, I always said that proof of stake has a problem. The problem with proof of stake is very simple. Who is the actual and the beneficial owner? A lot of people don't realize this is while you're trading the private keys. That's exactly what you're trading if you're with proof of stake. So if you are a proof of stake, the theory behind proof of stake ultimately is very simple. You have stake in the and therefore the person who is controlling the stake is the beneficial owner of the staked client. But what happens when the person who is controlling the stake is a trustee? There is one rule, proof of stake falls on his head because the person who's controlling the stake and you can't do anything on chain because the chain will not tell the difference. Basically says, I have your trust me. I'm a trusted party. I've got this chain and you have an account with me that gives you a claim over this chain. Now that's what an et cetera exchange does. That relationship, the blockchain doesn't know that all it sees is a coin. Who is the beneficial owner of the coin as opposed to who is the actual physical owner of the coin? The blockchain cannot say there's no way the proof of stake can depict that. So if the trustee, the frauds, the beneficial owner, unless if for example they run a fractional reserve, then it is in the interest of the person who's controlling the stake to stake the coin in such a way as to wreck havoc with the network. So the attack involves the lending of the coin, but not on chain. It could be through a bank. As long as the person who's the beneficial owner is net short, that person has an interest in causing trouble in order to cause the loan value to go down that they're short on. That's the issue. How does the chain know that that coin has a centralized ledger on a bank, a liability that's much greater than what's on the chain? It doesn't. So right, so there's no arguments to be made here that we'd be better off being hybrid mistake or I've heard it's a sick. The basic issue is not solved with proof of stake or is solved by different, because you're still attacking the management. But the proof of stake problem that people don't understand is that they don't realize that the chain can never detect whether there is a bank that has lent the chain, the person controlling the stake under humongous amount of that currency as a currency that is shorter. Let's say for example Bitcoin or proof of stake. So I own a whole bunch of Bitcoin on chain, but then I have a short position with an exchange or with a trader or with a whatever that's way bigger than my on chain hold. How does a Bitcoin network detect that? Because You know, obviously. Okay, so now, do I have an incentive to stake my coins so that the Bitcoin network does well? Or bad? As a huge incentive to stake my coins to hold hard, or disruption, because what happens is the price of my coins will go down, but so does the MRI of all this third party. So there's no way to know for the chain to know the person who's taking the coins is short to coin. That's my point. You know, I guess if that's the fundamental law Slide them into a floor and prove a stake. I think that's important for people to realize. And the lending doesn't have to happen on chain. The lending effect can happen off chain on a centralized bank exchange or whatever. Let me bring up another super chat trunk down to $5. Is it possible to build a bias for miners to use P2 pool directly into the Monero protocol, for instance, have the extra P2 pool rewards or decrease difficulty taper off after P2 pool has at least 40% of hash rate. So you just throw it out ideas there for, you know, how we can better and synthesize. I know what people are trying to do. I think a lot of the stuff where you really sit down and look at it as kind of goes more harm than good. I think that once people are aware what's going on, it's going to be very, very difficult to get the 51% with a cubic because first of all, there's considerable doubt whether they're going to get the cubic. And if it was easy to get the cubic, people will be trading and selling it and mining it. But then if it's actually easy to get the cubic and it's liquid, then the solution is to decentralize cubic. So then you must mine everybody with cubic. Everybody watches my cubic on their own pool, not on their pool. So you don't use that your cubic pool, but if you combine cubic or other pools that are honest, then the bear rate approach works. You simply turn around my cubic on those pools and sell it. The reason why that might not work is because they're not going to let you do that, but the minute you find that you can't do that, that that devalues in the main way. So I mean, if a cubic was actually decentralized, then you simply mine cubic and sell it. So that's called the incentive. Now the incentive is safe for everybody. The simplest way to address the incentive problem is to mine the cubic and sell it. If you can't do that, then you make everybody aware that you can't do that and that devalues the cubic. So either you combine the cubic and sell it, and then you have the bear rate approach. Mm-hmm or if you can't do that because of all these reasons, which a lot of people are saying in other cases, then you may get very aware of the fact you can't do anything about it. It's a cubic. So then it's happened, which is what's happening right now in real time as you're putting out this information. This is my point. This is the exact point. I think you can mine it and then let the market deal with it. And then if that were possible, the cubic was truly decentralized. And someone was trying to attack the point to do this and you got it early enough. So all you do is you throw everything to the merge mine of the cubic, you extract the cubic, and I don't actually think it's worthwhile you keep it put it on your salad. But then what happens is you have a much higher hash rate. But if you can't get your hands on the cubic to sell it, it's not liquid, then the cubic isn't worth as much. So I think you can get a hazard of the cubic of mining it. Oh, you could have said. So people who are sitting there at home and they have their minors going, what would you tell them, right? And if they can figure out how to mine the cubic Dump it Go for it! Buy it at Dump It! Feed it to the best! Yeah. I'm serious! I'm seriously serious about this! No, I love it. I mean, this is my favorite example of taking the polar bears. The polar bears are actually the largest species of bear. And yeah, they're huge. And they've got really sharp claws. Okay, so they have a reason to feed them the cubans. Yes, yes, yes. It's very simple, I don't even think you can answer the cubic when you come. If you can get your hands on the cubic, then you can sell it. If you can't sell it and get your hands on the cubic, you tell everybody else you can't get your hands on the cubic, and then it marries the cubic. You don't even need to know what the answer is. A lot of people feel that they've locked it down so you can't get your hands on the cubic and you can only get it through this one pool. Well, then all they have to do is not give you the cubic, they promised you, and then you're walking into a scam. You might even get them on Aero for four euro, leave your mind, because if they're scamming you on one, on the merch by one, they're going to scam you on the big one. and this guy is asking why is it not worth as much if it's not liquid I mean cook that's that should be that's obvious and yeah you can't sell it for anything I mean numbers on the screen oh you have a million dollars at the cubic all right go go sell it right now But actually it was interesting because I actually had that situation to some degree with my monitor original back in 2018 because I was delayed by the KYC and that lack of liquidity caused by the KYC process actually dropped the value that I could get for the monitor original. So I've been through that story. So yes, if you actually get the cubic, make sure you have your KYC in place ahead of time you're going to use a KYC explain to dump it. A lot of people in the chat, if anybody has any specific questions they want to ask about, get Artic's opinion out with regards to what's happening with Cubic. Now's the time to ask before we move on to another topic. What was I going to... Yeah, I mean, so do you see this as something like, all right, it's going to work itself out for all the reasons you're saying, but are there things that need to be done to prevent this from happening again or it will just continue as the... Well, there are certain housing things they're going to be done. For example, if we have a merch mine coin such as Terry, merch mine the Terry. So maximize your hash rate. That's something you can be done. Make people aware of how these things happen. Make people aware of what the risks are with pools and decentralized pools and so on. Understand all these kinds of things. Awareness is really important. Study the thing. I mean, one of the best things people can even do is just learn about it. Study it. I mean, I had about two days to look at this stuff. There's a lot of research in the community. So it's a lot of stuff you can do in that. I don't think the solution is protocol changes. No, I think the solution is an educated community. It's learning about the thread and how to deal with it. It's taking advantage of things such as if you can get miners going, yes, that helps. That problem was part of those needs in the design of AT. People were throwing mining power, even the little things that they had here and there. And that adds up. If you want to support the project, mine into, I mean, people you don't have buying into addresses you want to support. I mean, doesn't matter. I think you posted one from one of the other groups. Well, again, you might enter it. You stick your mind, you put in the address of mine. Now, you don't get a chance to entertain anything, but let people do that. There's going to be some money flowing through that. I mean, it's funny. I actually dig that once when I was freezing cold in 2016 and I was going traveling to the United States and I didn't want to carry my keys with me. So what I did, and then I went to this motel, I was freezing cold and I said, how are we going to generate some heat and I mined to the donation address of the General Flint? That's not it. to stay what? That's what it is then. I didn't get any blocks! useful proof of work. Yeah. So, I mean, there's things you can do. superhero tip to dollar, what would a random x equivalent of proof of stake look like in terms of solving current problems with proof of stake and if such a thing could be figured out, would it then be worth to switch? Oh, yeah. How do you get rid of the banks? Random Acts does not detect. Let's be realistic about it. Random Acts does not detect if somebody goes to a bank and takes a loan in Monero and then sells it and becomes short Monero. Random Acts doesn't detect that. So it's a different printer. Right. The proof of state problem is the fact that people can, with money, especially those that have the ability to print their own money, can make an attack that way, right? Basically, the way you attack proof of stake is you short the thing, but you sell the whole stake that you can mine with. And then you figure out the hash, the slashing was according to the theory, but I get around that and figure out how you could cause problems. Well, I think we, I think we covered this topic pretty well. I mean, anything else you want to say there with regards to what we're seeing, things seem to be, you know, ramping up. So I guess we'll see how, see how it plays out. Well, as I said, I think awareness is important. I think not dismissing it, I think little things can make a difference. If you can frozen mining, cash power, go for it. If you can learn about how cubic functions go for it, if you get insights about a shadow, that kind of stuff can make a big difference. So that's kind of what I'm saying. Let the free market come to a realization. Let the decentralized community figure it out because there's a lot of very small people out there and people are going to cover different solutions and one of them is going to be good. So, I'm thinking last, go ahead, go ahead. I think the last topic we wanted to talk was what's going on with full-chain membership proofs and what are significant to this zone. So a couple of things that are significant. The first big one, of course, is view keys. Actually, the first big one is it totally takes the illusion of market surveillance out of the equation, which is what it's designed to do. It is more a fungibility than a privacy update, I don't know if people realize that, because what you're saying is all the coins are the same, because the signers are in dire block. The heads are on full-chain membership proofs. So it's a real fungibility upgrade. So privacy is an improvement, but the huge improvement is on the fungibility side. And the other big one is that we're going to have proper view keys. So that has a compliance benefit. The downside to it right now is that you're going to have higher verification times. This is a major concern along with the DEBS. And also the transactions are going to be larger. The transaction size essentially kicked the fees the same by scaling the, what I call the set M, the minimal penalty free block size, which is calling it 300,000 blocks. So that goes up to a million blocks, sorry, a million bytes. And then the reference transaction size goes from 3,000 bytes to 10,000 bytes. The transaction rate is going to be like about two times or three, two to three times larger in central size, but verification time is going to be heavier. One of the major upgrades that I believe will have to take place for one area of the scale well is we need to start turning using GPUs or CPUs to verify transactions, and also parallel processing of multi-core CPUs. Moore's law has done very well in multi-core solutions, but single core has not really grown. So that's the big one with it. It's also the sort of like three major points that I see there. From a scaling perspective, I mean, the biggest challenges in the short term could be verification time. I usually don't say that, but as opposed to bandwidth, because bandwidth is so huge, it's not really an issue, the verification time can be addressed by parallel processing. And that's going to be one of the ways to do it. So yeah, then you do it. So these are some of the things to understand. I mean, a lot of people have a real one, sorry. Good, good. A lot of people don't realize that Monero actually can scale incredibly well because of these growths. In fact, we can scale way better than Bitcoin because you know how it's officially constrained. And that's some people don't realize, well, wait a minute, transaction size is a tough time to size. How can you possibly say that? Well, yeah, because if you actually calculate, here's an interesting anecdote. If you look at what megabyte of data was in 2008 when the Bitcoin white paper came out, it's kind of like a gigabyte of data in October. That's the equivalent bandwidth. So it's a factor of a thousand. So are we are we seeing clear skies ahead for full chain membership groups at this point? I know we had some issues potentially with the divisors and, you know, proving them mathematically, but then that we could be overcame that more than any other issues. I haven't seen major blocks in it, I mean, the question is how efficient are you going to make them? The question is, and I would expect probably after the hard fork there's going to be more efficiencies found, like what happened with a rink of actual transactions and bulletproofs. I think bulletproofs would be more efficient. But it's this question of time, doing the due diligence, doing the auditing, all this goes on. What was that contest? The contest, though? The idea there is that the aim of the contest is to make it more efficient. Basically. Yeah, what came of it, I know there was a winner, I reached out to him and had him on, but I'm curious if he did give a look at the subject. I don't have a lot of the details, but essentially, you know, we've got a progress and efficiency of code that was significant enough to warrant the donation. And that's what the thing was designed to do, make it more efficient. So it's basically an efficiency idea. That sort of was what it did. And yeah, you've got some coding efficiencies in there. And then there's other areas you can also improve coding efficiency, things such as how you handle Dandelion, how we handle the actual transactions, transmission of transactions back and forth. So there are efficiencies in there. There's also just little things like things in the how it handles the, for example, the transaction pool, how do you access it and when limitations are built in there. So there's a lot of areas where you're finding code efficiencies of various kinds. So that kind of thing. But no, part of it is just the actual due diligence of going through the auditing process and so on. So would you, I mean, would you say we're on track for, for getting implemented up and running, you know, early 2026? I'm saying, I think it's likely going to happen in 2026. I don't know when. I hate to kick dicks to these things. Yeah, of course, of course, but it seems it seems like everything is on track, which is Basically, much things are starting to come together, I mean, very nicely. And then the biggest concern, a huge concern that people have, of course, is this business of one-two attacks when we open that canoe. Oh yeah, that could be a whole nother show. That's a whole other show, yeah? Are you studying that? Are you spending your time on that? I looked a little out at, I mean, again, my biggest concern is how big of a proof is going to be. I mean, it's like, wait a minute, I can't look back, I'll talk about full-chain membership proofs and you finish this talk, and my one question is how big are they? Because what I wanted to know is what impact was going to have on scaling. So that's kind of sort of a lot of what I look at, you know, and this verification time issue, which people are concerned about, you have to look at what that, you know, what are the implications. So those are the kind of questions that I kind of like to focus the most on. Also, yeah, Arctic. Yeah, this is fantastic. We're at almost an hour and a half. I think we covered a lot of ground here. I know we have a lot of cubic people that we're listening in. You know, we're not cubic people as those who are watching probably are realizing we're very much Monero people. But you heard you heard from Francisco. And I think she's he's going to kind of boiling these things down to their essence. So I hope I hope everybody listened closely. The decentralized network is, when you attack a decentralized network, how a response can be totally unpredictable. Well, we shall see as things progress here, it's always entertaining in Monero land and I guess we'll see by Monero topi-ish, it will be streaming Monero topi-ish in a couple of days. It'll be interesting to see how things have progressed since then. But I'm glad we covered the topic. There was always out there asking, like, are we purposely avoiding the topic? No. I mean, I think people wanted to like ignore feeding into cubic's marketing and not be out there biting it, but it's important that at this point, the information just gets out there in terms of what it actually is so that we could have the dynamic properly play out where the honest Monero miners find their way to continue to stay on the stable network that they can essentially trust while the rug pull them. Yeah, I can see some of the cubic people in there. Yeah, one last tip over here, Quadreus Cialata tipped $5.01. Very generous tip. Thank you. There's been a lot of generous tips today. Thanks for the video today. My belief is that those that own large quantities of hardware for the purpose of mining Monero would be incentivized to choose honest pools for long-term profitability. Exactly. Absolutely correct, absolutely correct, take a long-term view of things and you will be fine. That's exactly my point, absolutely correct, very good. All right Alex, thank you so much. I'm sure I'll see you see you again soon I don't know it might be too too soon to add too soon to ask But do you think you'll find your way at Monero topia this year in February? February what next year yeah yeah yeah February yeah This is Tommy February. very good chance of getting to the end. I don't have a lot planned. I mean, I'm actually, we're going ahead at time. The one I've already committed to is triple C in Renbuch. So I'll be going for that. That's on the new year. So right after that, this will probably work out for me. So yeah. Perfect looks good. All right, Francisco. We'll be attached. Thank you so much. You bet me Hi, Monero Land. Thank you for joining us on this week's episode. We release new episodes every week. You can find and subscribe to our show on YouTube, Odyssey, iTunes, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Go to MoneroTalk.live for a full list of places where you can watch and listen. If you want to interact with us, guests, or other podcast listeners, you can follow us on Twitter, Mastodon, or any of our social media platforms. MoneroTalk is also made possible from contributions by viewers and listeners like you, and supporting us is easier than ever by typing in MoneroTalk.crypto in your Monero.com or cake wallet send address field to send us a tip. Once again, thanks so much for listening, and we look forward to being back next week.