As I thought, BS had already given them support (and likely money): twitter.com/harryhalpin/status/1304209640675323907?s=21

Nice publicity stunt!

soon™

Sgp_ clearly cybermiles was more popular than both nano and monero at the height of the crypto boom

How tf did you not know that? They got the most upvotes!

Support almost always equals money

I don't know enough about Nym but at a high level incentivized Tor with a different token sounds dumb to me

Yeah... their tech so far seems to be an improvement in some areas and could be a good step forward for anonymity networks.

And the token serves some Sybil-resistance purposes

dEBRUYNE: yes, i also know Harry and Nym. they are part of the C3 cluster/telegram group

Another sensational title by CoinTelegraph -> twitter.com/Cointelegraph/status/1304255354558177280

<dEBRUYNE "Another sensational title by Coi"> No such thing as bad publicity

we should start a community list of unethical journalism sites like cointelegraph

the community does have some pull

cointelegraph also runs HitBTC ads

I don't think anyone is running a "journalism trust index" of any sort

this community has enough respect in the greater crypto ecosystem to possibly pull it off

<cankerwort> Sethsimmons: TOR is already working on Sybil resistance through a PoW by our very own Tevador who created RandomX

<cankerwort> github.com/tevador/equix

<cankerwort> github.com/tevador/equix/blob/master/devlog.md

<cankerwort> Didn't someone appear here recently with an implementation of the atomic swaps h4sh3d is suggesting?

<cankerwort> reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/ilyv9u…ap_implementation_supporting_monero

<cankerwort> blog.torproject.org/stop-the-onion-denial

@cankerwort: Yo

<cankerwort> I haven't had time to dig into the recent CCS proposal (repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/168) or the implementation kayabanerve has posted about on reddit, but it seems to me there may be some overlap

I'm listed as one of the developers on that proposal. I wrote a very bare bones proof of concept. It needs a lot more work before usage with funds can be discussed. The CCS proposal not only covers removing PoC cryptography (notably the use of a library called secp256k1fun, which will be left in initially to get up and running), yet also re-organization into a more viable structure given the flexibility of the protocol. It aims

to create a codebase that's integratable into existing services, and usable as an app.

<cankerwort> Oh I see this has been discussed in the CCS comments also, very good

This is going from "here's technically usable code you should never use with funds" to "here's usable code it's okay to use with funds that you can integrate into a DEX, use right now as an app, or expand". That's why it's so much work. Between proper cryptography, isolation of components, full protocol specification...

I mean, this PoC just uses Rust structs + bincode. That's it.

Sure, it works with itself... and only itself.

Sorry if I'm being a bit argumentative. Yes, there's overlap. Yes, the proposal is worth it.

<cankerwort> All sounds good I just connected the dots of things I had bookmarked without digging into the details yet

(or at least, that's my opinion, having worked on the PoC and now contributing to the new project ;) )

All good, all good

come on, not pushing your PoC into production? you'll never make it in the BTC community ... :P

<xmrmatterbridge "<cankerwort> sethsimmons: TOR is"> Thanks for the links here, I was *just* about to reach out to Tor to suggest RandomX or a variant of it! Great to see tevador getting to work on that, it's a great fit :)

hyc: yes, we are captains of industry! if people lose their coins, that's okay. it's just more publicity for us

idk generally large coin losses are pump catalysts

^ monero is wasting its time with "researchers" and "proofs". they don't make number go up

finally someone else who empathizes

Re: CCS about atomic swaps: I do think that proposal fits the CCS, but i too am concerned about such big amount of money distributed in so long time. As selsta mentioned, the precedent about long term CCS proposals are all bad. Probably would be better to find a hybrid approach. We look for other communities/projects willing to fund half or a portion of the milestones and the CCS could do the rest.

And i really don't think that "let's fund it in case we redistribute the reward to other projects" should really be an option. Especially given the past experiences with failed projects. We should have learned something at this point :P

breaking in half at least is preferred from my view

makes sense, since this project doesn't only involve monero

also as other people have stated, I only see this as a win for BTC users, or users of other non-fungible coins

an XMR holder only risks acquiring tainted coins

I see no upside

And i really don't think that "let's fund it in case we redistribute the reward to other projects" should really be an option -> i meant to say _should not_

btw "atomic swaps" definitely became a buzzword that makes people overexcited, but it's true that would make things easier for DEXes

anyway. Even if we agree with half proposal CCS, half proposal other projects. I'm still concerned about the 7 months timeline.

what concerns you specifically erci?

as selsta mentioned, all past experiences with long term proposals went poorly and that's the reason why we usually fund 3 months long proposals. Also, even if i don't doubt their abilities, i don't know these people (and there are 7 people to be funded here). What if one leaves for one or more reasons? Then things will take more time and/or more funds. Shit happens and we should keep that in consideration.

Would be much better to split the proposal

opening one for 3 months of work, when that's done another one can be opened for 3 more monthss. Or something like that

but that's what the milestones are for, right?

Whats the point of milestones if proposals can't be longer than 3m anyways? Aren't milestones the exact way to handle long-running/large proposals?

^ yeh

That way we have easy and clear ways to only payout if certain goals are met over the life of the proposal.

No. Milestones define how a proposal is divided. But people fund all milestones reguardless. Very different from funding a proposal with n milestones and then funding another one with n milestones as well

Milestones are only paid out as met, correct?

We would fund the entirety, but the funds wouldn't be paid out if the proposal failed/fell short, so they could easily be redirected into GF or other proposals.

Milestones are only paid out as met, correct?

-> yes, but funds would be already allocated for those milestones, which is the problem

If there was large push-back like "I only want to fund these capabilities" it could be broken down more, but if people want all or nothing anyways I don't see the point of breaking it up further instead of just relying on clear milestones.

As a side note, I think it would be worthwhile to seek 'partners', i.e., teams/coins that would benefit from having an open source library and would be willing to donate

so they could easily be redirected into GF or other proposals -> as i said, that's not really optimal. Why would we want that? Why would we take such risk while we can do as we always did? Splitting in more CCS is the way we do, because allow people to see some work done before funding the next proposal. Which allow to verify the quality of the deliverd "product" and allow to have much smaller CCS whch are

easier to fund

ErCiccione[m]: I've talked with KMD. They've offered 2000 EUR for a full XMR PR to their DEX. AFAICT, they have no interest in supporting the wider ecosystem or paying anything that isn't a token amount given the amount of work involved.

it also makes the project more difficult to realize. If you have to stop the project and write another proposal after every month or so that seems very inefficient.

*They offered it to me personally to be clear.

TheCharlatan: why would you need to stop the project?

I don't think a 7 month proposal versus 2 3 month proposals, when the milestones are divided properly, has too much of a difference personally.

Price fluctuations alone make 7 months significantly more risks.

maybe I'm understanding you wrong, but wouldn't that imply that you run out of money every time?

Not sure if the CCS allows for it, but we could set the amount to the first (sub)milestone

Once completed, the 'team' writes a report, and the CCS reopens with an amount for the second (sub)milestone

selsta: yeah there are so many reason to keep doing shorter proposals. I really don't understand how all that happened with kovri and that it's happening with the hardware wallet people still think that such long proposals are a good idea. So much can go wrong in such long time

TheCharlatan: No. The point is simply to receive/ask the mony in differnet (consequential) steps, instead of all at the same time

oh, but the milestones do pay out sequentially

I'm fine with either approach, just sharing that my understanding of milestones was that they helped in these situations.

TheCharlatan: yes. The point is that the proposal would be already discussed, approved and funded

If the authors are fine with having to write multiple proposals, it's not really a bad thing overall.

i think we have 16 milestones for 7 months

Really, milestones don't help at all here

They do imo, as it allows for the proposal to be chopped up in 16 'episodes'

erciccione_[m]: can u explain the purpose of a milestone?

dEBRUYNE: What i meant is that they don't help fix the problem we are trying to solve: one big proposal funded for a lot of money for a long time

Each milestone requiring a report/evidence of work provided before payout is fine with me.

It's not a multi-year proposal, its 7mo, and the milestones allow us to avoid overspending/failure to produce results

ErCiccione[m]: You can if you lock the amount of funding that is possible

<dEBRUYNE> Once completed, the 'team' writes a report, and the CCS reopens with an amount for the second (sub)milestone

What happens if/when price fluctuates over that time?

<dEBRUYNE> Once completed, the 'team' writes a report, and the CCS reopens with an amount for the second (sub)milestone <- That's what i'm proposing. you are calling it a sub-proposal instead of a brand new proposal :)

sarang: exactly. As selsta mentioned before, there is also this problem to consider

i really don't see a single valid reason to make one huge CCS instead of multiple smaller ones

There is precedent for requesting a payout at the beginning of the project (I have done this)

But that does imply risk to donors

(multiple would mena 2 in this case)

One donor advantage to shorter proposal time periods is that it provides donors with a method to signal the value they see from ongoing work

If donors do not approve of current work, they can choose not to fund future work; or if they do approve and see value, they can choose to fund future work

Yes, it's annoying to have to write new proposals every few months, but that's how it is usually done now

To wrap it up, i'm proposing to: 1. look for other projects interested in funding half or part of the proposal 2. split the CCS in 2 proposals of 3/4 months each.

sarang: exactly

The downside I see to the milestone method is that the signalling method for whether or not a milestone is met is binary, and not up to individual donors

That being said, it does have advantages, as has been mentioned before

And of course donors can still choose whether or not they wish to support a longer-term project

so that is a definite signal to their assessment of its value and their trust in the team

but only in advance

It seems like the price question is probably the biggest uncertainty in that case

How would the team handle such fluctuation?

we thought we would set the exchange rate on the outset, and the payments later would be in XMR

OK, so the team would take on the risk associated with exchange rate fluctuations over the 7 months?

yes

it seems to be a consistent theme that people want other projects who would benefit to contribute also

Got it

Thanks zkao

I'll start poking at some of my contacts in places.

Shorter proposals would result in less time for fluctuations to occur, meaning more stable funding in theory

and provide this ongoing donor signaling

Is this not viewed as a compensating advantage?

I don't see why there would be a need to stop the project to do a new proposal

You open it advance; this is what I do now

*it in advance

Note that this isn't any kind of statement on the trustworthiness of the team or anything, merely a question of price and donor signaling

I have no particular reason to think the team wouldn't be able to deliver their results as stated

^ same for me. As i said, i see only upsides in splitting the proposal in two

The downside to the team would be that there is no guarantee of a second proposal being funded

but this is also part of the donor signaling

(and could reflect price, economic conditions, etc.)

So it's a tradeoff between price stability and guaranteed funding, to some extent

ErCiccione[m]: Ah I see, thanks for clarifying

On another note -- would this help to minimize the work needed here, if we can leverage existing work by other projects it could help vastly reduce the work needed/cost here: github.com/decred/dcrdex

I have no idea if that is viable (or wanted), but they're working on a similar type of FOSS DEX that is run by users, so could be helpful to collaborate/re-use what we can.

sarang: yeah. if the second part doesn't get funded that means the system is working as it supposed to. Personally i don't think that will be a problem, seeing the excitement around atomic swaps

(Note that I do not have a clear technical understanding of the differences here, but want to be sure we avoid duplicating effort if possible)

It's interesting to consider what the good PR for proposals might do to encourage other groups to help fund

The initial feedback I'm hearing from the DCRDEX people is that there is a lot of duplicated efforts in the new proposal, and that they'd likely help fund a smaller request for the back-end pieces needed to integrate DCRDEX (which they say is much smaller/simpler)

I don't know that we want to rely solely on DCRDEX, but could be good to use that for an MVP and only push for an alternative client down the road as-needed.

zkao: how do you personally view the tradeoff between price stability and guaranteed funding (albeit at an unknown fiat level)?

I'm certainly not asking you to speak for your collaborators!

sarang: i know the majority of collaborators involved would be ok in being paid in monero, so not concerned about price depreciation, skin in the game is important.

what im concerned about is orchestrating minimizing consulting work with unguaranteed funding, because then we have to make sure to keep doors wide open

Well sure, all CCS are paid in Monero (you can't get paid in fiat!)

i mean, internally

But ok, so the general view is to prioritize guaranteed XMR funding, rather than fluctuations

?

yes, you're write, and we dont want to write specs only! haha

?

Oh, for a first proposal

got it

Can you talk in more detail about community/researcher interaction?

There was brief mention of participating in channels

But I would personally like to see regular guaranteed participation in research channels, meetings, etc.

Nobody is obligated to do this unless specified in the proposal, of course

but I think that regular detailed updates and interactions with R&D folks is essential

my concern with these atomic swap proposals is whether they'll be compatible with future stuff like triptych

zkao: regular interactive updates could also reduce the risk of finishing a milestone and then discovering some error or problem after it's presented to the communities

i mean, beyond the concern of one way fungibility

gingeropolous: Why would they not be?

They're standard XMR TXs

gingeropolous: Triptych/Arcturus are compatible with multisignatures, but notably in a _much_ more complex way

As long as Monero uses Ed25519, this will work, no matter the RingCT algo

IIRC the proposal does assume multisig

This isn't even a multisig

Hmm, then I'm misremembering :)

excellent

Not for Monero. It's two keys which add together to a full key.

You recover the other one using adaptor signatures

Ah yes

The key-sum construction

*So yes, there are multiple keys combined, but there's not multiple signatures or any special signing algo

Except for adaptor sigs which is completely on BTC

FWIW Triptych has the same overall RingCT construction, but replaces the 2-LRS portion

sarang second your call for guaranteed particiapation in -research-lab and -dev. With you and surae stepping down for some time, a project like this could also help carry forward the momentum you have generated.

Arcturus is a bit different, but not wildly so

TheCharlatan: awesome

I think this is good for accountability, but also to avoid situations where there are mistakes that would otherwise delay your progress

Does it use a 32-byte elliptic key algorithm and a spend/view key? :P

lol yes

I mean, even that latter part isn't a firm requirement

It could use 4 keys

ok. i'll try to remember this time that atomic swap and multisig are still fine with super awesome ringsize a bajillion techniques

We have options here

Triptych is literally a drop-in 2-LRS replacement, albeit with very different key image structure

_very_ different

Yeah. Just making the point about how this isn't dependent on any Monero cryptography

I mean, sure, it generates a view key. It's immediately transmitted in full.

The only reason it uses a key-sum is entropy I guess?

I debated optimizing it to a one-sided calc. If one party wants to leak it, they can leak it from the start. Being able to decide at the start really doesn't change it.

I had some concerns about using a key sum without a commitment phase

But it's a simple calc increasing entropy which may have had other ramifications I didn't realize at the time

There is the DL EQ proof

It wasn't immediately clear what the consequences of rogue keys might be

And verified public keys

maybe move this to -research-lab? ^

Whoops, yes :)

thanks TheCharlatan =p

moved to -lab

sarang: so far we did not have the privilege to work on monero for an income, if we're funded we might free a lot of time and for sure will spend more time with this community -- that is part of the whole point, its a community we recognize ourselves with

I think any interactions key to the project (like research meetings) should be spelled out in the proposal

agree ^

I realize that I'm saying this as someone who doesn't do this in my own proposals, but hopefully my history of doing weekly meetings makes this ok =p

I noticed that -community interaction was listed, but I would view -lab and -dev interactions as most useful to the technical success of the project

<cankerwort> Sarang is stepping down for some time?

I will not be submitting a new CCS after this month

<cankerwort> :'(

I've been feeling a lot of burnout for quite some time

And I think it's best for general well-being

<cankerwort> Fair enough, it does seem quite intense

There is certainly a lot of stress involved :)

Anyway, that is unrelated to this project!

Stepping back to avoid burnout seems wise and helpful

and it can allow other researchers (like this team) to step up more prominently, which is great for the project

h4sh3d was concerned about u not being present to help us

Side note to zkao and TheCharlatan etc.: thanks for having such a detailed proposal

much appreciated

you helped us a lot

zkao: related to what exactly?

the DLEQ construction?

Hopefully it's been specified sufficiently enough in code and the writeup

yep, it was the last real piece missing

There are a few implementation things I'd recommend (including public params like curves and generators in the hash transcripts, etc.)

I'd be happy to answer the occasional question about it

zkao: have you seen the sample proof-of-concept code I wrote for DLEQ?

sure

ah ok

(usual disclaimer, for research only, don't deploy)

<cankerwort> Hopefully your down time will allow a chance for peer review of Triptych/Arcturus if it is disseminated widely

Yeah, I'm quite confident about Triptych

I'd like more eyes on the nonstandard hardness assumption underlying Arcturus

I was disappointed that the review of Arcturus produced an incorrect counterexample :(

<cankerwort> Is there a mechanism for reviewing reviews so that people see that caveat?

To be clear, the reviewer presented a claimed break on the Arcturus assumption, but it didn't work (meaning the assumption wasn't broken)

Reviews aren't generally made public

They are private between the anonymous reviewers and the authors

That being said, it's absolutely no guarantee that the Arcturus assumption is safe

Oxygen Orion has won handily

sgp_: Should we announce the result?

dEBRUYNE: my impression is that it's okay to do in the main blog post, but fine for a Reddit post or Tweet I guess?

thanks infinitejest-

this is delicious

now with more bottle: i.imgur.com/Ei2MdUi.jpg

w0w

Alla tua salute fluffypony

yo quiero

sgp_: now you start singing Despacito, right?

I wish

Please no lol

Haha yeah probably for the best

Monthy Monero Karaoke

It's about the song, not you :p

It would be about me if you heard me sing

Hah

sgp_ any word from CipherTrace?

L'acqua fa male, il vino fa cantare.

Nope

Wise italian sayings for you all

Water hurts? Lol

It does, it makes things rust. Wine doesn't.

<xmrhaelan> Any takers? reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/iqgjih…terview_a_monero_dev_on_ciphertrace

xmrhaelan: sure, fine lol

<xmrhaelan> The guy seems lazy, but I figure the more content out there the better

oh wait

this is Joel

lmao

hard pass

sgp_: who is he? The self promoting way he wrote that post already irritated me.

Dash Force

lol

sgp_: Joel as in thedesertlynx?

yes

I have no interest in an interview with him

No idea who they are, but "dash force" says enough i guess.

dash masternode funded “news”

One of our arch nemesis from back in the day haha

they were maybe most active from 2015-2017 I think? It's been a while since I've come across them

we probably don't need to get into all the grievances now lol

Think their activity hasn't declined that much, it's more that dash has been kind of out of the spotlight for some time

dash evo update soon^tm

wait is that not out yet? they were saying ~1 yr out in 2016

not sure

but since I‘m into crypto I have been reading that dash evo update will be out soon

they released it on testnet

nah, evonet is "pre-testnet" :p

my life is so much better not following this drama anymore

almost

Uh typo in the naming announcement tweet whoever handles those :P

“Oyxgen Orion”

dEBRUYNE or sgp_?

hmm I'll look into

"Oyxgen"

This is just the text in the tweet by the “official” Monero Twitter

fluffypony: Few of those glasses and I'd reckon you'd be quite tipsy lol

lol

That means the wine is working.

Damn i'm bored. It's raining outside, my van has a leak somewhere and it's dropping, i have no electricity and my nero d'avola is almost finished. Sad day.

Ok. It's spaghetti time.

no electricity? almost as bad as no internet

Yeah. I miscalculated the weather and my batteries are empty and there is no sun for the solar panels. So no electricity. I have internet tho

Maybe an explanation is needed: the batteries of my van are charged by solar panels. I miscalculated the weather (super rainy) of these days, so now i haven't enough electricity to charge my laptop this evening. I have internet using and old phone as hot spot. Tomorrow will be ok.

And that's all from "another day of erciccione's life". Stay tuned for the next episode: is the fridge about to break?

sending thoughts and prayers to your fridge

Thanks. That's always the most effective cure, after smashing that like button and sharing to your friends

<xmrhaelan> sgp good to know.

Orion the most familiar and boring choice :D

yeah I kinda thought it was boring too

and still doesn't flow off the tongue as well

I actually liked Ocelot since there could be a cute Ocelot image to go with it

204 people from Blockfolio clicked on the link to vote, not bad

wait what month is it?

Sept

:)

This is the most clocked on Blockfolio push notification blockfolio.com/coin/XMR/signal/xr2qhrq7Ej

s/clocked/clicked

<needmoney90 "We lost to cybermiles. Something"> Or just buy votes of phone/clicker farms via DNM. Don't know what the prices were circa late 2018, but likely relatively cheap then as well

<needmoney90 "I don't think anyone is running "> Would certainly be an interesting project to create, perhaps maybe it would improve journalism in the CC space, but I could be overly optimistic

<sgp_ "they were maybe most active from"> There was huge scandal/infighting episode I want to say 2018, maybe early 2019 between Dash Force and some other entity I'm spacing on

(Which may account for the quietness)

I just removed his post, he's been told where to go.

Also he's evading a shadowban, which is against reddit rules

👀

I think its hilarious he got shadowbanned

Though I'm confused since I can see his account

Wrt atomic swaps, is there any risk in waiting to see if people implement them independently first? I heard Nano got a bridge with BTC working (headline, possibly not reality) using this method, so it's not like these are the only people with the ability

The idea hasn't been floating around very long, and I'm hesitant to push for paying for an implementation if it might just end up existing on its own in a reasonable amount of time

<cankerwort> If other projects donated to get hooked up that would be cool

yes, kayabaNerve and PlasmaPower built the nano/xmr to btc swaps: github.com/MerosCrypto/asmr