/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54136393
custom tx fees are a heuristic which can de-anonymize you. This is why all monero wallets use the same fee-selection algorithm. I wouldn't worry about it anon, trying to micro-manage your fees is bad for your privacy.
If monero is like $50k we can just split the chain and do atomic swaps between them.
At that point we are talking global adoption, so we have bigger problems (opportunities) than fees on mainnet!

>>54141318
I don't know. I all know is that my steak tastes better when I take my steak-tastes-better-pill.

>>52509981
The "vulnerability" is that the bootstrap server is hosted by a single guy. whoop de doo. It's like saying that bitcoin or bittorrent are centralized because of their bootstrap servers. It is a vulnerability in the same sense that the getmonero.org domain is owned by a single guy who could hypothetically point it at a web server with malware.

Trying to poison the network through bootstrap servers is basically a type of social attack that doesn't work if the victim has at least one connection to another peer. If they are already running their own monerod, then it won't work. If they are connecting to someone else's node using a remote wallet, than it won't work.
It could only work against new people connecting to the network, assuming the bootstrap node was malicious. Which would cause people to immediately notice. The only way it would affect the network is if everyone forgot all their peers all of a sudden (e.g. deleted their p2pstate.bin) and re-bootstrapped right after the bootstrap server became malicious.

That being said, more bootstrap nodes would be nice, even just for speed and reliability if not for this very lame mode of attack. If you are hosting a node on your residential IP, port forward. If you have a domain that would be good too. I would expect there to be an update to monerod that includes more default bootstrap servers.

That being said, what do other anons think?

>>49302161
lurk moar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4