02:31:37 That article is complete trash yeah 02:31:48 CoinTelegraph just puts things out without thinking 02:54:52 When list of good/bad outlets 02:55:42 Monero is one of the most reasonable communities to host it, we have reputation 05:57:17 rehrar: Lol. Never thought i would have needed it 06:24:11 sarang: has it been confirmed to be a payment id? 06:25:52 I find it kind of hilarious that a custodial exchange getting permission from the powers that be, to be a bank, is a) seen as a huge boon to Monero by half the community and b) that the other half takes offense at the anti-cypherpunk stance of the first half :D 10:25:22 at this stage in the game we still need fiat onramps, so this is a huge gain 10:25:40 speaking from experience, it was hell trying to open a business bank account that would deal with a crypto business 10:31:56 CoinTelegraph, at this point, is simply FUDing Monero 10:32:15 It is quite blatant. I mean, what is this headline? https://twitter.com/Cointelegraph/status/1306279445259587588 10:36:31 dEBRUYNE: i actually that article (and the attempted sanction) looks well for Monero, given that the address just seems an arbitrary number/address from some other chain. or did we figure it was a txid/ link to a key image, or something? 10:36:44 *i actually think 10:36:47 I am referring to the headline they use on Twitter 10:37:02 Apparently it is a payment ID by the way 10:39:09 i wonder what the implications are for the payment ID being blacklisted. i guess it means any subsequent ring that includes that output would also be a higher risk profile 10:48:18 SerHack: Could you post that article on r/monero too? 10:59:29 dEBRUYNE: maybe someone should inform the article author, https://twitter.com/the_postman_ that the posted "xmr address" isn't :D 11:00:06 In other news, all bank transactions with "Yellow Submarine" in the memo field are now on the OFAC list /s 11:11:30 Inge-: i wonder what would happen if you posted a bank transfer with one of the sanctioned cryptocurrency addresses in the memo field repeatedly 11:11:55 i am sure it would have to get flagged at some point (probably quite quickly as well) 11:27:50 heh 11:28:26 Venmo regulalrly stops transactions with dubious memo fields like "iran" or "thanks for the drugs" 11:29:16 But someone got their panties in a twist when putting down a payment id as an address on the ofac list. That makes absolutely no sense. 11:29:52 But it is a good experiment to take those 5 payments and see if one could say something about their origin or destination / if the outputs were combined later etc 12:46:04 could it be a key image instead of a payment id? it's just 64 hex chars 13:03:27 It was identified as a payment ID in several transactions 13:11:11 New article from CoinTelegraph that is NOT a hot piece... https://cointelegraph.com/news/xmr-workgroup-says-irs-should-study-monero-not-try-to-break-it 13:11:42 Hot=hit 13:12:34 https://twitter.com/cointelegraph/status/1306542297320808448 13:17:39 Who's the spokeman? xD 13:24:03 There's an anonymity set of possible spokespeople? 13:28:45 I spoke with her 13:39:23 two articles about monero two days in a row on CoinTelegraph? any publicity is good publicity I guess. 17:53:27 Who is the Workgroup? 17:53:35 Just some random one? 17:54:08 The Workgroup 17:54:23 Ah very good. I was wondering for a while 18:21:35 wen "Monero immediately implemented support for the OFAC ban on an XMR address - the specified address will be rejected by the Monero Network" 18:23:05 Beat that compliance, you other wannabe blockchains! 18:24:36 I assume you're joking Inge-, but of course that's complicated by having addresses never appear on chain 18:24:52 And AIUI that "OFAC address" is in fact an unencrypted payment ID 18:25:00 I know I know 18:25:33 Now, if it were an _output_ the question becomes more interesting 18:25:36 I am joking, but with the level of competence put out by that OFAC list - someone could easily fud this as Monero just being compliant extremely fast - just try sending to the specified address :D 18:25:52 Since it certainly is possible for miner or node to reject a transaction including a given output as a ring member 18:25:57 sarang: don't you gbe giving them ideas 18:26:39 Fixed ring sets, which are useful for many reasons, would seem to mitigate that 18:39:41 ban payment ID 18:39:48 problem solved 18:39:52 monero fully compliant 18:40:00 mission accomplished 18:41:47 I say we are fully compliant now. As the stated "xmr address" can not be sent to or withdrawn from 18:41:50 insta-compliant 18:45:21 We could write a function that checks if a wallet address is the one in the OFAC list, and if so, rejects it from being accepted at the protocol level 18:49:38 * Inge- runs away screaming 18:52:50 Wat 18:53:00 No, that would not work at all 18:53:12 Even if you wanted to 18:54:44 * sarang assumes midipoet knows this... 18:56:07 * midipoet smiles as he realises he made a programming joke 19:01:22 if you could do this in a good way, I think I will have to go buy me some Chainlink 19:02:29 It wouldn't work at the address level, since the network can't verify addresses (that's the point of stealth addressing) 19:02:48 and even if it could you have a huge Oracle problem 19:03:02 A node/miner could certainly decide that it "doesn't like" a particular _output_ (i.e. one-time address) and choose to reject transactions containing it 19:03:27 But this has the consequence of also causing rejection of transactions that include that output in a ring but do not actually spend it 19:04:05 Fixed input sets would mean the only way to meaningfully do this kind of censorship would be to avoid including an entire _set_ of outputs 19:04:09 and that seems a bit crazy 19:04:44 Fixed sets would also require (ideally) a verifiable shuffle, to ensure that miners can't mess with ordering of outputs within the set 19:04:52 Miller et al. proposed one way to do this 19:07:24 It would be a spurious function (that's the joke) 19:08:39 lol 19:08:45 Just wanted to make sure =p 19:09:16 But the idea does provide a nice benefit to fixed input sets: censorship resistance 21:18:55 it would be funny though if you did have the function that returned no match and then provided a pop up "the network has checked your transaction against the OFAC list, and all is hunky dory."