<xmrhaelan> Randy has updated the Locha Mesh proposal milestones based on yesterday’s community meeting notes. repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/merge_requests/115

<xmrhaelan> I think they are reasonable for a first time proposal

<xmrhaelan> He seems to be a Monero believer. Just hasn’t made it a public emphasis of his and he has admitted to not being very good at marketing/promotion/outreach. I think this could be good for both groups.

<xmrhaelan> And FWIW they are already beginning the work on improving documentation. I’ve been trying to help point things out to them in my limited capacity.

sgp_ is there any kind of timeline for the next hardfork?

or list of intended changes?

hardforks are every 6 months

no timeline more specific than that

What about having the meeting we discussed about yesterday (move away from /r/moneromining and a better moderation of the monero chats) this sunday after the dev meeting?

sgp_ needmonero90 ^

I can swing that, but it's a bit fast with no notice

ErCiccione[m]: when I the dev meeting again?

sgp_: January 26, 2020 (Sunday) – 17:00 UTC.

Ah, next week

That's probably fine

Oh next sunday

sorry wrong wording. I meant next sunday :)

hyc: Think the current cycle is more around 9 months

my list of changes so far is: CLSAG (tentative), if CLSAG then increase ring size to 13 (open to discuss), prevent miners underclaiming block reward (in progress), change minimum fee median to average of short and long medians (my concept, waiting for ArticMine feedback)

anything else in the works?

also some minor bug fixes to fee calculations

which is network consensus layer

I don't see a compelling reason to increase ring size to 13

An order-of-magnitude change would be useful, but such a marginal change may not be useful

Another possible change might be default Janus mitigation

Hidden timelocks wouldn't be ready for the next update, but are worth talking about

CLSAG updates should be posted by this week, now that suraeNoether has presented edit suggestions

I can put enforce TLV format in tx extra as (needs discussion)

I also don't see a significant reason to go from 11 to 13. Even the increase from 7 to 11 wasn't extremely well-justified imo

we are waiting for matching results from surae to help make these ringsize decisions

I would reserve my final opinion on this, but right now I think that if we can make new transactions with ring size 13 the same size as old ring size 11, then I think it warrants the bump of ring size.

Following the idea that privacy is an upmost principle to be sought, only limited by technical scaling limitations. If it fits what is deemed ok wrt. scaling then I am in favor of bumping privacy, even if it is hard to quantify.

yeah my thought is, as long as some metrics improve and no metrics get worse, might as well go for it; pretty wishy-washy tbh :)