So easy a caveman could use it™

I still hate the "accounts" name, I'd go for *slots* or *drawers* or *boxes* or whatever

Are those more helpful in practice?

something that implies classification purpose, I don't know why but I always feel like an account is the top level, probably from banks

They function as accounts in terms of "an addressable destination for assets", no?

anhdres[m]: which account are you now talking about?

<sarang "Are those more helpful in practi"> probably not. but I guess if we really care for UX we should do a lot of testing and research

account as in wallet or account as in subaccount?

e.g. many people have multiple accounts with the same bank, and can transfer funds effectively instantly between them

<sarang "They function as accounts in ter"> yes. In my experience onboarding people in monerujo, many instantly assume "accounts" is a level above the "wallet"

<selsta "account as in wallet or account "> This question examplifies the naming problem pretty good 😅

indeed

probably something stressed by monerujo's design choices that shows many wallets on your main screen

perhaps subaccounts would be clearer for our current accounts

Subaccounts makes the account term more complicated

Wallet -> Subaccounts -> Subaddresses ?

Does that actually help without a list of definitions??

N26 Bank has something similar for checkin accounts and they are calling it "Spaces"...

<selsta "Subaccounts makes the account te"> it makes them longer indeed, but the sub- implies it's a level below the wallet

but a tricky subject, I know

we discussed it a lot when we integrated the whole system into monerujo

maybe it's just because it's very early, and people will come up with their own naming and we follow after

like calling subaddresses "burners" or sth like that, because most people use them like that one-time thing

I guess we'll see

rehrar fix our UX issues

they call them spaces accounts

isn't it just Wallets > Accounts > subaddresses?

midipoet: that’s what I thought

but apparently some people call wallet account getmonero.org/resources/moneropedia/account.html

oh my

?

my latest recommendation for usage is usually different wallets for different life aspects (work/personal/donations/trading), different accounts to classify people/clients/sources, and different subaddresses for those use cases you need extra privacy (exchanges/per sale/etc)

does that make sense?

Is this really an issue of terminology, and nothing more?

Selsta yes plz

Give me two weeks of hunkering down and really slamming it out, and I think I can get it to a usable place in terms of terminology and layout.

anhdres[m]: yea agree with that

Ideally the "wallet" would be the app, the "account" would be our current wallets, "subaccount" then "subaddresses"

IMHO

sounds good^

"Monerujo is a Monero wallet where you can create many accounts"

Each account has its own seed

Each "sub"account is implying to be derived from an account

But not the main one

Same with addresses, each account or subaccount has its own main address or base address and you can create many "sub"addresses more

But to achieve that we have to stop using "wallets" even for the files, and only for the programs

IMO having account and then subaccount is not ideal

Is the intent to present "account" as being what the _recevier_ knows (keys/seed), and "subaccount" as being what is presented to potential _senders_ (addresses)?

subaccounts group addresses, addresses would be presented to a potential sender

BTW, for this new Monero GUI I am making, we don't support accounts or primary addresss - everything is a subaddress.

And to prevent subaddress reuse, it automatically increments by detecting previously received tx's

so only first account?

yes

I think the initial idea behind accounts in Monero is so that multiple people within a household can have their own account within a single wallet.

no the problem is

The point is just to use consistent terminology no? Then we can edit the moneropedia and all other related entries accordingly

unless you spend outputs manually, you will mix together outputs when only using 1 account

So the official GUI supports accounts to prevent mixing outputs yet nowhere it explains this

? :P

this is only for super paranoid :P

<dsc_ "I think the initial idea behind "> wow that never occurred to me

anhdres[m]: that's what's been told to me at one point in time at least, while selsta argues it's about preventing mixing outputs

it can be used for both

what would be the undesirable outcome of mixing outputs, what could be inferred form that?

it’s also for organisation and probably most people use it for that

yeah that's how I use them

Anyway, I find it mostly a loss for UX hence the absence of accounts in my upcoming GUI, instead I support output control (freeze/thaw) and churn, as an advanced feature

And actively preventing subaddress reuse

dsc_: how would it look to an user that imports a seed from a wallet that used accounts?

Well shit, that's a good question.

because I think it's very important that we keep interoperability

many users troubleshoot monerujo issues with the official gui and the other way around afaik

Solution: we will detect and warn upon finding a balance for subsequent accounts

3.5 explains the issue I was talking about

using one account per source is an easy way to not have to worry about linking

rehrar: in terms of UI/UX you ever seen privacypatterns.org?

yes

well researched

Talking about UX privacy patterns. Today I pasted my wallet password into my terminal because at least on linux the password input cursor in the GUI wallet blinks even when the window doesn't have focus 😅

fahrradflucht[m]: which version?

fahrradflucht[m]: I fixed this

yea this should be fixed lol

unless I broke it again :D

*again* !

I updated today. From 16.0.2 to 16.0.3 not sure if it happened before or after

okay just tested. Its fixed 😊 Nice work, thanks.

[=

Is anyone interested in joining the Zcash Community Panel? I can invite a new member zfnd.org/blog/expanding-cap

dsc_: fix everything

lol, ok boomers

Those claims about illicit digital transactions seem _exceptionally_ higher than other examinations I've seen

(usual disclaimer that I am neither a lawyer nor an expert in that space)

same ,and even if they weren't, it could and imo likely just means that more creative-criminal types are going to flow to the opportunities available, and the fact that the rest of the population largely hasn't, doesn't mean that the technology inherently serves for criminal use only/mostly

a simple reasoning that CBB (central bank boomers :p) either can't make (worrying) or conveniently don't (worrying, though expected)

Well, at the very least I think it's important to have a proper understanding of how digital assets are being used

the fact that bitcoin is basically unusable as digital cash should skew the results though

But it sounds like even bitcoin is very rarely used for nefarious purposes compared to fiat

and that media coverage happens to be skewed

"person uses cash for evil" is hardly a news story anymore

"person uses bitcoin for evil" clearly is

yes

So I very much wonder about this particular source

like the internet was only going to be for criminals. remember those days?

That seems to be the usual refrain for any new tool

indeed

what i really have trouble understanding is why most people don't seem to get that the alternative is just not viable

the argument when it comes to money seems to be, if the state can't look at everything, you COULD be funding terrorists or you COULD be evading tax

ok.. I COULD also be chatting terrorists up, or I COULD be reading terrorist sites, or buying terrorist books

the horror! remove all encryption and store it all so that they can make sure I'm not

o_0

sarang: I just saw an article about how terrorists had a bunch of crypto seized by government forces

in the article, you see they mention "30 crypto accounts" and then focus on how terrorists are using new technology

I don't know this article

they also mention they seized $200M in USD

I will get it

Is there a reason you mention it now?

sarang: yeah because they talk about how crypto like it's the focus on funding for terrorism, and don't even specify the amount of crypto seized. And just barely mention $200M USD was also seized

ah ok

oh shit $2M

not 200. but point being if the say it's BTC, they say the number of accounts, but they don't specify the amounts at all. The millions was in USD

apparently the folly of the terrorists was that they thought Bitcoin worked like Monero

anhdres: are you on IRC directly somehow?

or just mattermosT?

Actually I'm using the artist formerly known as riot

aww yeah :)

Element