Monero Dev Meeting Note Highlights – 2019-06-30
Logs
351 lines
rehrarhey guys
rehrarit's time for a meeting
rehraras always, we'll try not to drag and make this longer then it needs to be.
rehrar1. Greetings
sarangHi
rbrunnerHi!
vtnerd__Hi
kinghatshalom
rehrarAlright. 2. What's been completed since last meeting.
rehrarAnyone have an update on stuff?
rehrardsc_ selsta dEBRUYNE for GUI people?
rehrarmoneromooo TheCharlatan CLI?
dsc_thecharlatan working on reproducible builds for GUI
rehrarfluffypony luigi1111 smooth for Core Team?
dsc_I'm working on better tails integration
dEBRUYNEGUI v0.14.1.0 is around the corner
rbrunnerAh, that corner?
dsc_I've updated https://autonode.xmr.pm/ to show more remote nodes
moneromoooI did some more work on share-rpc, seeing someone's started reviewing.
moneromoooIt would be nice if more people reviewed, and if someone did something with it
sarangmoneromooo: do you consider the CLSAG implementation branch suitable for PR/review (not to merge yet, just for review)
moneromoooYes.
moneromoooIt doens't have your latest changes though.
sarangRight, and I plan to update 5707 (and its CLSAG equivalent) again soon
sarangthose are pretty minor overall
moneromoooThen it might not be be ready.
luigi1111I don't have an update
dsc_thanks for the update luigi1111
rehrarluigi1111: you can update us on the brand of soda the core team drinks as the relax in the lounge
dEBRUYNEWith respect to a timeline for CLSAG, is October too optimistic? We must also take into account third party wallet providers, which will have to make changes too
rehrarthanks everyone for the updates
rehrardEBRUYNE: this is going to be unpopular to say, as it's been discussed before, but if we're "right on the edge" with CLSAG, then why not just push the fork back a month?
sarangdEBRUYNE: No final word from potential reviewers yet… I reached out again
sarangSo I do not have a timeline for CLSAG review
rehrar25% savings in ring sigs is kind of cool and nice to have.
dEBRUYNErehrar: So push the October fork back to November?
rehrarif it'd give us the breathing room that would make enough people more comfortable with the timing, then yes
sarangWhy not wait until spring?
rehrarAh, wait no. we want RandomX in ASAP, huh?
vtnerd__This is 25% savings just for the ring sigs portion, not the entire tx, right? I don't see the reason for the push
rehrarso pushing it back maybe isn't great
sarangvtnerd__: a 2-2 txn shrinks by 25% overall
sarangnot just sigs
sarang(ring sigs themselves shrink by approx 50%)
rehraroof
rbrunnerMy gut feeling tells me that RandomX and those CLSAG thing together will be a bit too much …
vtnerd__Hmm need to read the paper then, didn't realize it dropped that much
sarangyou save 320 bytes per spent input
sarangand about 20% on sig verification time
vtnerd__They are separate things entirely
vtnerd__They are either ready independently or not
sarangAnd to clarify, there's working code already that anyone is free to review
sarang(verification code will be tweaked a bit still)
vtnerd__Yeah the issue was a math review though … ?
sarangYes, and a formal code review
sarangBut getting early internal review would be useful
rehrareven though waiting on bulletproofs was a good idea, it was still painful to have that six months of big big transactions
vtnerd__Oh you wanted both for this too? Ok
rehrarthat we forever carry
sarangvtnerd__: it's important enough that I think both math/code review are important
sarangesp. since MLSAG never got a formal audit
vtnerd__I mean its either that or risk an entire blow up of the coin
vtnerd__In response to rehrar
dEBRUYNEsarang: I'd be fine with spring, that at least gives third wallet providers plenty of time to work on it
luigi1111I think spring yes
luigi1111for clsag
rehraryes, but my suggestion was pushign back a month for audits
rehrarwhich lessens chance of coin blow up
sarangWell, I can let everyone know when I hear back from our potential reviewers
sarangOSTIF are also putting out feelers
dEBRUYNE<rehrar> yes, but my suggestion was pushign back a month for audits <= Can you elaborate?
dsc_Has anyone heard from fluffy regarding GUI release?
dsc_Has he arrived home yet?
rehrarif someone could see into the future, we can both see the outcome of the audits as well as save money by not paying for them
rbrunnerIf we wait with CLSAG until spring, will there be time to build something nice on top of it until then in addition?
sarangAlso: earlier internal code review may reveal bugs that we can fix before sending code off to the reviewers
sarangrbrunner: ?
rehrardEBRUYNE: it's just pushing this fall fork back one month to give some breathing room to get some CLSAG audits in
rbrunnerLike those famous atomic swaps, or whatever
rehrarbut as I said I see reasons not to do that. It was more in response to vtnerd__
sarangDLSAG's key image issue makes it unsuitable for implementation just yet, IMO
sarangCLSAG is basically ready without such (known) problems
dEBRUYNErehrar: Seems like a bit of a slippery slope
dEBRUYNESeems safer and more prudent to wait six months
dEBRUYNEIn the grand scheme of things six months isn't that much anyway
rehrarI don't disagree, dEBRUYNE
rehrarproving alternative viewpoints
rehraralthough how long six months is in tech and blockchain relatively is much bigger
sarangIt's pretty moot at this point anyway
sarangUntil we hear about audits
rbrunnerWell, I think that "blockchain relative time" has slowed considerably lately
rehrartrue. So maybe move on.
sarangIt's a moo point. Like a cow's opinion
rehrarrbrunner: not with fireice and ryo nipping at our heels.
sarangDoesn't matter
rbrunnerLol
rehrarPretty soon we'll be doing coordinated, organized attacks out of fear
rehraralright, moving on
rehrar3. Code/Ticket discussion
rbrunnerI have used the Go RPC bindings: https://github.com/monero-ecosystem/go-monero-rpc-client
rbrunnerMy 2 PR's to improve on that were just merged today.
rbrunnerCan confirm that the bloody thing works.
dEBRUYNErbrunner: Have you spent any work (or chatted with the team about it) on OB lately?
rbrunnerYes, and the ball is definitely in their court now: https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/issues/1638
moneromoooThat sounds like a lot of nice work there.
rehrarmuch applause!
rehrarIs that something Revuo worthy, you think?
rehrarGo RPC stuffs?
rbrunnerAh, hmmm, maybe not yet the OpenBazaar stuff, quite early yet.
rbrunnerRPC is of course ok to mention, maybe other people will use it
rehrarAlright, if there's nothing else we can move on
dEBRUYNENice work rbrunner
rbrunnerThanks!
rehrarI'm assuming in "Old Business" we don't need to continue discussion on Payment IDs?
dsc_very nice rbrunner
moneromoooOnly if there are new arguments.
rehrargoing once
rehrargoing twicee
dEBRUYNErbrunner: "and no support for moderation" <= Is that even feasible at this point?
rehrarhearing none, I think we can move on from PIDs
rbrunnerDoubtful, unfortunately.
rehrarOk, any other meeting items?
rehrarJust as kind of announcement. People going to Vegas for Defcon, some of us are going a couple days early (starting monday the 5th) to hang out and chill. All are invited and welcome.
dEBRUYNErbrunner: I guess they could apply a similar process as bisq for moderation
dEBRUYNE<rehrar> I'm assuming in "Old Business" we don't need to continue discussion on Payment IDs? <= I think the rough consensus was that we should start with a full software removal first
dEBRUYNE(please correct me if I am wrong)
rbrunnerDon't remember exactly, isn't Bisq multisig-based as well?
dEBRUYNEPartly (for the BTC part)
rehrardEBRUYNE: every core team member that spoke up (in the issue) was very against that. Smooth, ArticMine, binaryFate
moneromoooI'll keep the parsing code with an opt-in flag in monerod I think.
rbrunner to hang out and chill <- is that even allowed for Monero people?
dEBRUYNErehrar: No?
rehrarohhhh wait
rehrarnever mind, I'm speaking of PID removal in general
rehrarnot long
dEBRUYNEThey were against parsing tx_extra / temporary ban
rehrarI got confused cuz you said "software removal 'first' "
rehrarand thought you were hinting at the reversal later
rehrarmy bad
dEBRUYNEHmm no
dEBRUYNEAs far as I know, no one was against a full software removal
rehrarcool
dEBRUYNEThere were people opposed against (i) temporary banning the tx_extra field, (ii) permanently banning the tx_extra field, (iii) parsing the tx_extra field to disallow long payment IDs
rehrarthen we gucci
sarangDefine "full software removal" for clarity, plz?
sarangAs in, no GUI option to add one for outgoing?
rehraras I understand, Isthmus says he has some very interesting research going on about "treasures" found in th tx_extra field
rehrarI'd like to see that research when it happens, and we can discuss the pros and cons afterwards
rbrunnerHuh? Really?
moneromoooIn fact, I already made that code. I have shitloads of stuff that's not being PRed just because it conflicts due to merging being stalled now
rbrunnerThat does not sound too good …
dEBRUYNEmoneromooo: Do you have a list for luigi that he can merge?
moneromoooYes.
dEBRUYNECould you post it here too?
moneromoooSure. One moment…
dEBRUYNEsarang: removal from both CLI and GUI
sarangWith no option to enable via flags?
moneromooo5647/5666, 5650/5651, 5663/5664, 5668/5669, 5675/5676, 5678/5684 (there's more)
dEBRUYNEThat was my idea kind of
moneromoooand 5690/5694, 5681/5708.
sarangNote that this could cause some exchanges/services to recommend specific wallets (that do continue to support) to their users
sarangwhich could be good or bad, depending on the wallets
dEBRUYNEThat's a potential risk, yes
dEBRUYNEI deem it more likely that they will simply switch though
moneromoooI could keep the –enable-paymend-id-bad-for-privacy, and instead of enabling them, it prints "lolno".
dEBRUYNEmoneromooo: Will send luigi the list in PM as a reminder
moneromoooOh I did
rehrardEBRUYNE sarang this is all one big experiment. I'd say let's try it this way and see how the exchanges react
moneromoooI just don;t want to annoy him too much.
rehrarif they don't do as we hope, then we learn from that next time we have to make a decision like this
rehrarbut this is all hypothetical at this time. Let's see what happens.
rbrunnerI really doubt that the exchanges have time on their hands to work against the community, but who knows
rehrarwell, we do have LiveCoin
moneromoooIf they recommend other wallets, I won't have any regret in breaking those in next fork ^_^
rehrareither way
rehrar4. Any last meeting items?
sarang5707 speeds up MLSAG, and will be sped up a bit more
moneromoooDoes anyoine want to review share-rpc ? Or did I mention that already…
sarangreview will be welcome
dEBRUYNErehrar: Should we perhaps discuss v0.14.1.1?
dEBRUYNE<rehrar> dEBRUYNE sarang this is all one big experiment. I'd say let's try it this way and see how the exchanges react <= Yes
dEBRUYNETo be fair, it is mostly the big ones that are remaining that we need to get on board
rehrarmoneromooo: I'll put it in the REvuo volunteer opportunities (for all the good that will do)
moneromoooAFAIK it's waiting for a freebsd patch from TheCharlatan.
dEBRUYNEBittrex, Bitfinex, and Binance
rehrarmoneromooo: can you PM me a link to it
vtnerd__moneromooo: I will look at it this week
moneromoooThanks
rehrarthank you
rehrardEBRUYNE: what do you want to discuss regarding 0.14.1.1?
rehrarthe floor is yours
dEBRUYNETimeline kind of, what do the devs prefer?
dEBRUYNEWe can move a bit faster now that we have deterministic builds
moneromoooAs soon as the bsd patch is in.
moneromooo(and the patches above)
rehrarI may be getting confused because of the numbers, but didn't pony do builds already?
rehraror this is new? what's going into it?
moneromoooThe BSD patch and the patch list above.
rehrarah, k
dEBRUYNEmoneromooo: All right. Does this need a release v0.14 equivalent? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5705
dEBRUYNErehrar: new release
moneromoooI dunno, ask TheCharlatan about this one.
dEBRUYNEAll right
rehrarok, anything else to discuss about this release?
moneromoooThe GUI I suppose ^_^
rehrarby all means, moneromooo. Take it away.
moneromoooI don't have anything to say about it.
dEBRUYNEGUI will follow CLI for v0.14.1.1
dEBRUYNEFirst have to wait for pony to finish the v0.14.1.0 builds though
moneromoooThere are missing builds for .0 ? I didn't even realize…
rehrarpony is traveling again
rehrarhe does that
dEBRUYNEYes
dEBRUYNEAlso we kind of had to retag, which has delayed the release a bit
moneromoooGonna run out of places to go soon.
rehrarhe's running from the community methinks.
vtnerd__Me? Lol I'm in a car on lte so I dropped service once and hit leave once stupidly
dEBRUYNErehrar: He provided an update yesterday
dEBRUYNEAnyway, vtnerd__ I wanted to ask you if you had already started some work on dandelion++ ?
rehrardEBRUYNE: link?
rehraralright, if there's nothign else, I think we can call it here.
rehrardiscussion can obviously continue after the fact
vtnerd__I started to look into it. At this point my ffs pt 2 is hopefully going to make that transition easier (but it won't be a complete d++ implementation)
rehrarTwo weeks from now is the 14th of July. Same time.
Sources and notes
- Meeting log: Overview and Logs for the Dev Meeting Held on 2019-06-30, getmonero.org. The official post carried the raw log and pointed readers to Hello Monero for the overview.
- Original Hello Monero URL slug recovered from the Wayback Machine index; the original page content did not survive, so this reconstruction carries the log as archived by the Monero Project.