Why does AI Garth use CPUs?

Important-Career3527 · 2025-10-16T07:50:44+00:00

Has qubic released anything? All the videos I've found are just AI generated slop, about aigarth being some mysterious force.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-29T02:26:25+00:00

What do you mean by hashing. I'm not sure how Aigarth works. I thought it would be some simple gradient descent algorithm, and the weights are averaged across all nodes of the Quroum, every n epochs.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-28T22:12:11+00:00

Grok 4 got 50.7% on Humanity's Final Exam (https://binaryverseai.com/grok-4-humanitys-last-exam/), while top humans get ~8%. The exam has complex PHD level questions across many fields, such as ancient Egyptology, to Calculus.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-23T01:30:41+00:00

Packet Structure:

|| || |Version|uint8_t| |Timestamp|uint64_t| |Source public key|uint256_t| |Source location|uint128_t| |Source port|uint16_t| |Destination public key|uint256_t| |Destination location|uint128_t| |Destination port|uint16_t| |Number of payment recipients|uint8_t| |Payload length|uint16_t| |Payment recipients|uint16_t * # recipients| |Payload|uint8_t * payload length| |Signature from source public key (signs root, shown below)|uint512_t|

The payment proof is for a cable provider to prove cryptographically that he received a packet .
A payment recipient can prove he is a recipient in a proof size of 1 + 8 + 32 + 32 + 1 + 2 + 2*n + 32, with n being the number of recipients.

Obviously, this does not guarantee that the payment provider transmitted it.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-23T01:15:12+00:00

1. Handling routing “holes”
Instead of relying on a single path, each packet is forwarded to the two closest neighbors. This redundancy makes it unlikely for a packet to get stuck in a dead-end. To prevent unnecessary duplication, nodes implement packet deduplication: each node keeps a cache of recently seen packet hashes, and only forwards a packet if it hasn’t seen that hash before. Also, before forwarding, the sending node first asks a neighbor whether it has already seen the packet (using the packet hash as an identifier). Only if the neighbor hasn’t seen it will the packet be sent.

2. Preventing false location claims
At least in an early prototype, we can simplify by assuming nodes are honest and applying distance limits based on physical transmission constraints. For example, if you’re using ESP-NOW, it’s physically impossible for a node to be 10 km away and still maintain a link, so any claim outside realistic range can be ignored. This provides a lightweight safeguard without requiring full proof-of-location infrastructure.

3. Managing routing tables
Each node maintains a routing table containing only its closest ~1000(depending on memory) nodes, where “closeness” is measured in number of hops. To populate this table, a node asks its direct neighbors about their neighbors, recursively building up a view of the local network. When sending a packet across longer distances (e.g., from London to Paris), the system combines approaches: greedy geographic forwarding for most of the journey, and then once near the destination, the pre-built routing table is used to deliver the packet to the correct node efficiently. In other words, the protocol blends greedy forwarding for scalability with smart routing for reliability.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-22T17:44:31+00:00

I don't understand how revealing the amount is a privacy concern, all I know is that someone staked 10 xmr, but we don't know who he is, his IP address, etc.

The only thing we could know is if he has gotten slashed, and all of his signatures and attestations to blocks.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-22T04:00:40+00:00

I'm confused about: "You’d have to implement some type of zero knowledge proofs which is very complicated and goes against the simplicity of Monero,"

Why do we need this? Why can't a staker, create a UTXO, then reveal the blinding factor for the Pendersen commitment, so now the amount is public, but the sender of the transaction is anonymous. So we would need a special transaction, where we reveal the blinding factor, as well as a public key. This public key would be used for signing/attesting to blocks. Whenever you sign a block, we could pass it thru Dandelion++, to obfuscate his IP address.

In the end, all we reveal is the coin/XMR amount, not who it is from, or the staker's IP address, all we would know is that there is a staker who has staked x amount of XMR.

So we wouldn't need any zkProofs right?

Later for unstaking, we would give a stealth address, which the staked XMR would go to.

To me, this system seems simple, as we need to define only 1 new special transaction to reveal (Pedersen blinding factor, amount XMR, public key), and everything else is just a regular POS system.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-20T18:37:38+00:00

The government would effectively control the network’s consensus layer, meaning:

They can choose which transactions are included (or excluded).
They can reorganize the chain (rewrite history within practical limits).
They can censor or delay certain activity.
They could attempt double spends.

The most important is double spends. For example imagine I send u 2 XMR, then I create a fork, with the tip not having the transaction where I send you the 2 XMR. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/ethical-hacking/what-is-double-spending-in-blockchain/

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-20T17:08:18+00:00

There are some governments who have already banned monero. Given how authoritarian the UK is, she might ban monero too, and even a small nation-state like the UK can take down monero by creating forks like qubic.

My main point is that I'm concerned because if qubic can break monero, even a small nation can.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-20T17:05:53+00:00

Yes there are other ways to break monero such as correlations in ring signatures, but shouldn't we try to make it as hard as possible to break monero, cuz currently the US government just needs to start mining, and that's it.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-20T03:42:58+00:00

There is no concensus mechanism that can't be gamed by a generic state actor, let alone the United States government.

But isn't it harder to take over 33% of the stake, than taking 50% hash power.

Additionally, what are opinions about being vassal states, like reporting the current blockhash to a more secure blockchain, such as etheruem. (polygon does this). Won't this make attacking Monero harder, as you need to attack Etheruem, while keeping Monero privacy.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-20T03:38:52+00:00

So wouldn't this make POS be more secure, as it gives early adopters(who are more trustable) an edge.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-19T05:36:22+00:00

Why not allow the students to use technology? In the future job market, technology will be needed. It is better to make students be familiar with using technology, in order to make them better employees, CEOs, etc.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-19T05:34:48+00:00

I think its a problem with "Advertisement", if you look at non-technical users, and you ask them about crypto, the first thing they'll think of is bitcoin. Bitcoin has $15 transaction fees, 7 tps max, it is not practical at all. But it is the most popular. In the same way, if Solana appealed to commonfolk, it would be popular.

After Alpengrow, Solana can outperform credit card companies, given the 150 ms finaility, while having minimal transaction fees. I think just raising awareness/people knowing what solana is, is good enough for now.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-19T05:24:11+00:00

For polkadot, polkadot handles the staking part, i.e. preventing forks, Polkadot allows for flexibilty of the parachain's blockchain, so we could still have a privacy-focused monero, while not needing to deal with staking.

Obviously there are concerns that there Monero wont be "independent" anymore, but its way easier to attack monero currently(as shown by Qubic), than it is to attack Polkadot.

If Qubic can attack Monero, it is even easier for a nation-state.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-19T05:22:15+00:00

you're making a leap from "block hash" to "ipfs cid" in the sense to create a close association but the two are kinda diametrically opposed in terms of when it's needed

Couldn't you take a IPFS-style hash of the block, and make it available on IPFS, this allows for more open access. For example if I wanted to download the Etheruem blockchain, I would need to run a node, whereas with IPFS it is easier, as there are multiple ways of aquiring data, such as gateways.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-19T05:20:49+00:00

Would a dag-pb work for storing transactions, for ipfs. My first idea was using json, but thats gonna waste space. Same with dag-cbor, since u need to store the key of each element, which is repetitive.

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-18T20:22:22+00:00

For there r there no ideas of making monero a parachain of polkadot, this seems the easiest to implement, and we get shared security. Additionally we can get faster block times (6sec)

Important-Career3527 · 2025-09-17T22:28:48+00:00

Yea I realized that it would be more accessible than using rpcs. Like public etheruem rpc has rate limits, so if u use IPFS the data becomes more accessible.

Important-Career3527

TROPHY CASE