07:26:03 <midipoet> sgp_: my guess also is that the actual tender was relatively prescriptive (gov contracts usually are). they provide what is called a Terms of Reference (ToR) that guide the bids they wish to receive. Companies then compete to show they understand the problem space, basically demonstrating the necessary expertise and resources to complete the work desired by the contracting agency (in this case the DHS).
07:26:31 <midipoet> My bet is that CWS, through his company (i forget the name), saw the ToR and may even have had a competing bid in. So he knew that a generalised method was already in progress to analyse Monero (admittedly built on top of methods we already know).
07:27:27 <midipoet> the ToR would have also (at least) given hint to the available data sets that the DHS had to put towards this sort of project - as these ToR's nearly always do that
12:55:10 <ErCiccione[m]> Does anybody feel like contribute adding new voices to the Moneropedia? https://github.com/monero-project/monero-site/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22%F0%9F%93%96+moneropedia%22
12:55:34 <ErCiccione[m]> No need to open a PR, you can just write the text in the issue and i'll take care of adding it
13:09:37 <dEBRUYNE> ErCiccione[m]: Perhaps worthwhile to post on reddit too to reach a bigger audience
13:12:55 <ErCiccione[m]> I always call for contributors when i post the summary of the changes to getmonero on reddit. I don't know if it worth making a dedicated announcement for this, it's nothing new really. People should always look for stuff labelled "needs contributor" on the monero-site repo.
13:23:45 <dEBRUYNE> Wouldn't hurt either I suppose (if you have sufficient free time)
13:30:18 <ErCiccione[m]> Yeah some attention to the website won't hurt. Doing something else right now, i'll put something up in the next days.
13:40:29 <sethsimmons> ErCiccione: I'll be diving into open issues starting next week, hopefully :)
13:41:19 <ErCiccione[m]> That would be great, let me know if you need any info :)
14:12:42 <dsc_> I'm listening to this ciphertrace interview and the CEO keeps saying "I'm not the math guy"
14:14:14 <dsc_> It's unrelated to the discussion but I don't like when upper management calls their techies like that
14:14:35 <dsc_> :pPp
14:15:04 <bakewell> @dsc_ I think that's fair enough. If you asked my CEO about technical aspects of how most of our products work - they'd be lying if they told you. But, a shame he wasn't more prepared considering he knew he was coming on for an interview :D
14:15:18 <dsc_> Let this be a lesson for any CEOs in this channel right now. I'm looking at you Jeff Bezos!
14:15:55 <dsc_> bakewell: Yes I'm specifically talking about "the math guy"
14:16:20 <dsc_> He's running a technical company
14:16:43 <dsc_> You don't call your employees "math guys"
14:16:54 <dsc_> I might be a little pedantic though.
14:17:17 <bakewell> Dave Jevans does. Maybe "the math guys" refer to him as "the money man". :D
14:17:24 <dsc_> Fair enough :p
14:18:04 <bakewell> I presume none of his math guys are math girls. #WomenInTech
14:18:19 <dsc_> Oh, that's not why I brought it up.
14:18:33 <bakewell> I know, I was just adding to your point too.
14:18:38 <bakewell> Of why its not the best term to use.
14:22:55 <ErCiccione[m]> That's just incompetence and bad faith. He probably hoped the interview would bring him some PR value, instead he made people realize he has no idea of what he is talking about.
14:23:36 <Inge-> Maybe they refer to him as "Pointy-haired boss"
14:23:57 <dsc_> Internally they can call eachother whatever they want
14:34:08 <asymptotically> lol Inge-
14:34:33 <asymptotically> dilbert's boss wants to synergise with blockchain technologies and sharting
16:41:09 <dsc_> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/ila2pp/us_homeland_security_can_now_track_privacy_crypto/
16:41:10 <monerobux> [REDDIT] US Homeland Security Can Now Track Privacy Crypto Monero (https://decrypt.co/40284/us-homeland-security-can-now-track-privacy-crypto-monero?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sm) to r/Monero | 0 points (20.0%) | 0 comments | Posted by SaneFive | Created at 2020-09-02 - 16:28:45
16:41:36 <dsc_> misleading [✓] old [✓]
16:45:38 <sarang> *according to press release and company claims
16:47:28 <sarang> As always, without details or evidence, it's not possible to assess any claims definitively
16:47:36 <sarang> Anything else is speculation
16:47:47 <sarang> Informed speculation, perhaps... but still speculation
16:48:01 <sgp_> this Decrypt article is even worse than the others because they neither bothered to check the claims nor ask for opposing comment
16:48:15 <sarang> The CoinTelegraph article didn't seem to check the claims either
16:48:32 <sech1> Crypto journalism! Never disappoints!
16:48:33 <sarang> Asking "what do you think about vague claims" isn't really verifying anything...
16:48:35 <sgp_> right, but at least they included the "other side" to a pathetic extent
16:48:49 <kinghat[m]> do any of those websites get any traffic? cointelegraph probably does.
16:48:52 <sgp_> don't get me wrong they're both bad
16:50:01 <kinghat[m]> people publish garbage all the time but if theres nobody there to read it 🤷‍♂️
17:39:58 <dEBRUYNE> sgp_: Decrypt also uses a more sensational (and erroneous) headline
17:40:18 <dEBRUYNE> kinghat[m]: Cointelegraph gets a lot of traffic, yes
17:40:39 <dEBRUYNE> dsc_: I've removed that thread by the way, don't need thousands of duplicates on the sub
17:41:09 <dsc_> yes that's fine
17:41:24 <dsc_> been previously posted/discussed
17:45:13 <sarang> Hopefully responsible media identifies clearly that it's a press release from a company
17:45:28 <sarang> and that readers can make conclusions based on that, but on little else
17:46:50 <dsc_> Forget it :P That's media for you.
17:47:19 <sarang> Eh, one can hope...
17:48:23 <dEBRUYNE> Due to these erroneous headlines we're basically forced to write a rebuttal / response
17:48:44 <sarang> I also do not wish to give it too much free credibility
18:58:39 <sgp_> What statement? https://twitter.com/monero/status/1301232701719089154?s=19
18:59:14 <sarang> WUT
18:59:24 <sarang> Whoops, not sure why caps lock was on
18:59:27 <sarang> I meant, wut
18:59:41 <sarang> dEBRUYNE had suggested a blog post, but I am uncertain of its usefulness
19:09:54 <ErCiccione[m]> dEBRUYNE: why declare we are making a statement when many voiced skepticism about making one?
19:10:13 <sarang> I can do a blog post, but I don't want to give free publicity and credibility to this if it isn't also helpful to readers/users
19:10:43 <ErCiccione[m]> yeah, that was my point. Right now making a blog post gives credibility to a PR move
19:11:43 <sarang> I was happy to do the interview with Dave since the point was to learn
19:11:59 <sarang> but right now my view is "without any details, there is nothing new to discuss"
19:12:15 <sarang> The onus IMO is entirely on them
19:12:26 <sarang> The academic community has done their part for years to study this openly
19:12:58 <sarang> Plus, I don't want it to sound like this is some kind of wild surprise to hear that a company is claiming this
19:13:09 <sarang> Threat modeling assumes these methods could be used
19:13:20 <sarang> Doesn't matter if someone claims they are doing it in practice... anyone can claim this
19:13:56 <sarang> I'm not surprised, just irritated at the huge waste of time this has been
19:14:11 <sarang> I'd much rather go back to building useful tools than trying to tell people what a press release is
19:17:11 <midipoet> the reality is they have a v1. That's the story. It'll probably get better as time and resources are pointed towards it. Believing otherwise is just a form of denial, imo
19:18:20 <sarang> No one is saying that reasonable threat models should be dismissed
19:18:25 <sarang> I'm saying that we already think about these things
19:18:34 <sarang> Whether or not companies put out press releases is not relevant to this
19:18:52 <sarang> Because anyone could claim these things, and it could be true, or it could be false
19:19:09 <sarang> I refuse to subtly confirm what someone else may or may not have built
19:19:18 <sarang> That's misleading and just gross
19:21:27 <lza_menace> > I'd rather go back to building useful tools than trying to tell people what a press release is
19:21:30 <lza_menace> ^
19:21:34 <ErCiccione[m]> My suggestion is to just take this as an heads up. We have these issues that need to be solved. People announce that they can track Monero all the time. Nobody provided any proof yet, so let's go on doing what we were doing without giving them too much free PR
19:21:44 <lza_menace> agree 100%
19:21:56 <ErCiccione[m]> Because i suspect that making noise was a big part of their goal here.
19:22:17 <sarang> I absolutely think this is a great opportunity to revisit practical threat models
19:23:53 <lza_menace> fuck em
19:24:07 <lza_menace> let
19:24:14 <midipoet> ErCiccione[m]: they have a tool which will definitely provide a probability risk score for its user. That's what they have, and it will have the effect it's meant to have, unfortunately. The degree of its accuracy actually makes no difference practically, though of course it does ethically.
19:24:15 <sarang> That being said, I do also think that the interview was useful in that it perhaps assured viewers that we weren't just sitting around twiddling our thumbs for years
19:24:15 <lza_menace> 's make a better tool and use those learnings to improve the protocol
19:24:25 <sarang> Being able to ask specific questions about known methods showed we are aware of them
19:25:00 <sarang> midipoet: that's what they _claim_ to have
19:25:08 <ErCiccione[m]> midipoet: We have absolutely no clue about what they have.
19:25:14 <sarang> AFAIK nobody has publicly seen the output of this tool
19:25:24 <sarang> We saw a screencap on reddit with no details
19:25:33 <ErCiccione[m]> we only have our assumptions knowing the vulnerabilities of Monero
19:25:50 <midipoet> I actually think it may mean Monero will get delisted at a slower rate than it was from certain exchanges/jurisdictions
19:25:55 <sarang> I asked for information on this screencap, and was provided effectively no information
19:26:03 <dEBRUYNE> ErCiccione[m]: Wasn't me, I don't have access
19:26:09 <dEBRUYNE> Catching up to the discussion now so I can participate
19:27:15 <midipoet> As ArticMine says, it's theatre. They have provided an effective prop
19:27:51 <sarang> Well sure. When you don't have to back up claims, life seems pretty great =p
19:27:55 <dEBRUYNE> midipoet: Should definitely use the tool to get more listings lol
19:27:59 <sarang> But that's not how math and science are supposed to work
19:28:02 <midipoet> I would suggest not worrying about it, and just work on making Monero more resilient/private/efficient as we would have been doing anyway. Also, more transactions would help
19:28:47 <midipoet> sarang: when has cryptocurrency ever required proof of claim?
19:29:05 <sarang> :(
19:29:07 <sarang> It should :(
19:29:35 <sarang> I'll note again that project materials do use terms like "anonymous" and "untraceable" that I think should not be used
19:29:46 <sarang> So this project is not immune from this kind of marketing-ish stuff
19:30:01 <midipoet> I agree
19:31:23 <sgp_> hopefully when I come back you all will be done talking in circles about nothing haha
19:32:38 <sarang> lol
19:32:44 <sarang> I'm waiting on builds anyway
19:54:42 <ErCiccione[m]> I think would be a good idea to make a simple clearing statement on twitter which clarify the situation to the people who are panicking because they think Monero is traceable now. That will have the same effect of a blog post if spread enough, but wouldn't be felt as official.
19:54:46 <ErCiccione[m]> If anybody know who is managing the twitter account please let them know about it ^
19:55:06 <ErCiccione[m]> a post on twitter could go far
19:55:30 <ErCiccione[m]> Best would be to not mention CT, so to not give them visibility
19:55:54 <ErCiccione[m]> Just something like "About the recent allegations about Monero blah blah"
20:00:16 <sarang> I see that sgp_ had made a personal statement that has appeared on twitter
20:00:44 <sarang> IIRC that was made before the interview, if that matters
20:01:45 <sarang> ErCiccione[m]: what might such a new statement say?
20:02:11 <sarang> I think it's important to neither scare anyone unnecessarily, nor reassure anyone unnecessarily
20:02:20 <sarang> But TBH the threat model hasn't changed
20:02:59 <sarang> and I stand by my early speculation that nothing this company is likely doing is anything particularly novel
20:03:38 <sarang> But merely cramming heuristics and external data into a score
20:03:59 <sarang> Should we learn more details with reasonable evidence, perhaps this view will change
20:04:07 <sgp_> Someone can steal any of that statement but I think a blog post is excessive. We just don't know enough info so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
20:04:15 <sarang> Sure
20:04:25 <sarang> "the threat model does not change due to press releases"
20:04:55 <sgp_> Fwiw I've heard from other researchers outside of Monero who are skeptical of the claims as well, though the full details of that were shared in confidence
20:05:08 <sarang> fair enough
20:05:35 <sarang> I must remind myself (and perhaps others) that there are economic and business incentives at play here
20:05:40 <sgp_> Hopefully I can get someone on the record next week :)
20:05:45 <ErCiccione[m]> I agree a blog post is excessive, but since some people would prefer to have one, i think a simple statement reassuring people made by Monero's twitter account would be useful. I'm trying to mediate between the two parties here, IMO a statement is not strictly necessary, but i understand why some would feel would be useful to make one
20:06:04 <sarang> Reassure people how?
20:06:04 <sgp_> Oh, easiest to copy/paste from that Reddit post. I made a comment
20:06:24 <sarang> It's important not to downplay possible threat models
20:06:29 <sgp_> Sending the statement from the Twitter account is fine imo
20:06:30 <sarang> that have always existed
20:06:39 <sarang> My point is the existing threat models haven't changed
20:06:44 <ErCiccione[m]> sarang: Saying what we know: no proof of new threats, nothing new that what we already knew
20:06:51 <sarang> So the ecosystem today is exactly where it was a week ago
20:07:34 <kinghat[m]> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/its-past-time-coinbase-issue-transparency-reports
20:08:17 <ErCiccione[m]> *nothing new from what we already knew
20:09:04 <sarang> I think it is fair to say that nothing from the press release or the interview leads me to believe that this company knows any math, graph theory, or fundamental heuristics that are not already known
20:09:17 <sarang> If they do, this was not conveyed (and might not be, for business reasons)
20:09:38 <lza_menace> had they shown something like this but with new findings then we'd ahve something to talk about: https://github.com/maltemoeser/moneropaper
20:09:59 <sarang> Sure, which they obviously wouldn't do
20:10:24 <sarang> If I ran a company and wanted to sell that, I wouldn't
20:10:39 <ErCiccione[m]> Personally i'm convinced that CT mostly wanted to make noise to attract investors/clients. I have no simpathy for them
20:11:01 <sarang> Sure. Private companies owe nothing to the project, and the project owes nothing to private companies.
20:11:34 <sarang> If clients buy their tool, I sure hope they know what they're getting
20:11:42 <sarang> and I am not convinced _at all_ that they would, based on the interview
20:11:54 <sarang> Hopefully this was made clear in the interview by my questions
20:12:15 <ErCiccione[m]> Private companies owe nothing to the project, and the project owes nothing to private companies. -> Absoulutely, especially survelliance companies
20:12:25 <sarang> In practice this is not the case
20:12:30 <sarang> Since the project's research is entirely open
20:12:33 <sarang> and companies' research is not
20:12:41 <sarang> so there will always be a fundamental asymmetry
20:12:47 <sarang> Companies get the benefit of open research
20:12:50 <sarang> but not the other way around
20:15:17 * ErCiccione[m] leaves now because the third glass of wine is making me foggy
20:15:48 <ErCiccione[m]> Or making "him" foggy? IRC's actions confuse me
20:16:09 <sarang> I always consider them to be in the third person
20:16:16 <sarang> hehe
20:16:23 <sarang> Good wine?
20:16:41 <sarang> My brother-in-law is a sommelier with good taste in wine, but I know nothing about it :(
20:16:44 <ErCiccione[m]> Chianti riserva. Cannot complain
20:17:12 <ErCiccione[m]> Me neither, sounds super good but it's a 6 euros bottle :P
20:17:26 * midipoet watches ErCiccione[m]  drown his sorrows due to the death of Monero
20:17:28 <ErCiccione[m]> still decent tho. As an italian i have to have a quality standard
20:17:43 <dsc_> Barolo?
20:17:48 <ErCiccione[m]> Lol
20:17:50 <dsc_> :>
20:18:18 <ErCiccione[m]> Barolo for celebrations, chianti to drown sorrows
20:18:32 <dsc_> Mix both!
20:18:34 <asymptotically> you need the £4 a bottle "probably-not-legally-wine" from tesco
20:18:49 <dsc_> Someone told me that someone else told that person that someone else told that person that a Monero Barolo webshop is opening soon
20:18:51 <ErCiccione[m]> dsc_:  Blasphemy!
20:19:01 <ErCiccione[m]> asymptotically: tried that. Don't know how i survived
20:19:19 <dsc_> pure speculation though
20:19:29 <lza_menace> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfL_PwWdNGU
20:19:29 <monerobux> [ Dr. Steve Brule "Sweetberry Wine" (Original) - YouTube ] - www.youtube.com
20:19:42 <asymptotically> i must have terrible taste because i thought it was pretty good :P
20:19:43 <midipoet> The Monero barolo webshop is definitely for toasting the death of Monero!! We can do it all together this way.
20:19:54 <asymptotically> well, not good. but not bad
20:21:41 <ErCiccione[m]> i tried some tesco wine in england and i would have preferred mop water, but i mean, it's england. Food is as tasty as the weather there
20:24:11 <ErCiccione[m]> Sorry asymptotically if you are british. England can be fascinating, but let's leave food and weather aside :P
20:24:35 <midipoet> Good fish and chips is good
20:24:43 <midipoet> As is an English fry up
20:24:56 <midipoet> And Sunday roast lamb
20:25:13 <asymptotically> i'm going to go to the beach and eat my fish and chips while i get rained on and attacked by seagulls
20:25:16 <asymptotically> and i'm going to enjoy it! >:(
20:25:56 <ErCiccione[m]> hehe :D
20:40:25 <xmrscott[m]> Monero barolo wehn