-
rehrar
Community meeting in an hour.
-
rehrar
community meeting in a few minutes
-
rehrar
hi
-
rehrar
meeting time
-
rehrar
-
rehrar
1. Greetings
-
rehrar
anybody here today?
-
» xmrscott[m] raises hand
-
ErCiccione[m]
Hi. FYI I have latency problems
-
lederstrumpf
hi
-
h4sh3d[m]
Hi
-
rehrar
good of you all to join
-
ajs-mob
hi
-
rehrar
we'll start, but people can trickle in
-
rehrar
Let's start with workgroup stuff actually, as I understand we'll have quite large CCS discussions today
-
rehrar
So, Workgroups!
-
lederstrumpf
@rehrar - your messages are all arriving in pairs. no biggie, just fyi.
-
rehrar
must be a Matrix thing, bro.
-
hyc
irc looks fine
-
rehrar
LOL, literally everyone joining the meeting today is joining via Matrix
-
rehrar
ye, hyc is and IRC purist.
-
rehrar
high fives bro
-
lederstrumpf
lol, it does seem to be a matrix issue
-
hyc
lol
-
rehrar
ok, let's get us some updates, yeah?
-
rehrar
a. Daemon/CLI/GUI workgroup
-
rehrar
xiphon, selsta?
-
selsta
hi
-
selsta
we put out a CLI point release
-
ErCiccione[m]
Yeah it's a matrix thing. There are some problems with the bridge apparently
-
selsta
including some bugfixes, and we will release the GUI ~2 weeks before HF
-
xmrscott[m]
(But only some people on IRC, not all)
-
ErCiccione[m]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ yeah
-
rehrar
selsta: remind me of HF date?
-
selsta
17.10
-
selsta
approximately
-
rehrar
neato
-
rehrar
drawing close to CLSAG
-
rehrar
b. Localization workgroup
-
ErCiccione[m]
A lot of people are working on translating the GUI and there is also some activity for the website as well. I will PR the translations for the GUI before the release
-
rehrar
cool
-
rehrar
and c. Website workgroup?
-
ErCiccione[m]
Progressing. Beside the usual stuff i'm working on adding the parts who were not integrated with the i18n plugin
-
ErCiccione[m]
i already PRd the navigation menu, will work on the footers in the next days
-
ErCiccione[m]
after that there will be only user guides and moneropedia missing, then we will have all the website correcly using the i18n plugin
-
rehrar
you get a chance to sneak a peak a Hugo or nah?
-
ErCiccione[m]
As i mentioned not long ago, I think a migration to a new generator right now wouldn't be a good move. It would need a huge amount of work and i don't see clear benefits for switching
-
sarang
FYI giving a talk and unable to stay for this meeting to give an update
-
rehrar
sarang: can we get you on now or is it too late?
-
rehrar
if it's too late, then have a nice talk.
-
ErCiccione[m]
Most of the website will need to be refactored, the Moneropedia completely redone, the integration with Weblate revisited and so on. And as i said, i don't see the reason to switch to a new generator right npw
-
rehrar
aight
-
rehrar
and the redesign idea without the generator change?
-
rehrar
;)
-
ErCiccione[m]
I don't see a complete redesign a priority. The priority is to update the resources we already have and fix the issues we have been having from the last redesign
-
ErCiccione[m]
That doesn't mean that the design doesn't need to be improved tho
-
ErCiccione[m]
So, if somebody have ideas/ suggestions, please share them
-
rehrar
aight, and you still need to get with me about the busy work
-
rehrar
willing to get it done with you
-
rehrar
but for the sake of time, let's move on
-
rehrar
d. Outreach workgroup
-
rehrar
lh1008[m] xmrhaelan, either of you guys here?
-
rehrar
guess not, and if they come in they can give the report later
-
rehrar
we'll skip MRL cuz sarang is busy
-
rehrar
3. CCS Updates!
-
rehrar
h4sh3d[m]: you can start
-
rehrar
you wanted to make a case for your proposal or something?
-
rehrar
-
h4sh3d2
yes
-
h4sh3d[m]
^ it's me
-
h4sh3d2
we want to discuss about our CCS, indentify what the next steps are
-
lederstrumpf
<h4sh3d[m] "hi - we would like to discuss ou"> we asked for feedback on Thursday whether anything is still blocking a merge.
-
h4sh3d2
maybe lederstrumpf
-
h4sh3d2
yep, go ahead
-
lederstrumpf
there were good discussions with vtnerd on the MR comment section
-
lederstrumpf
in a sense, a preliminary review of the swap architecture by vtnerd
-
h4sh3d2
we also gathered some first feedback and we updated it
-
lederstrumpf
that discussion has been resolved since almost two weeks
-
lederstrumpf
<h4sh3d2 "we also gathered some first feed"> that too
-
ErCiccione[m]
I see that some suggestions from the community were integrate , but not the most important that IMO is the biggest block for the merge: 7 months of work for a CCS is too much. You were suggested to split it in 2 or 3 different proposals. What are your thoughts about that?
-
ErCiccione[m]
There were also thoughts about auditing the implementation before starting to fund this proposal.
-
h4sh3d2
as previously sketched, we prefer to not break up the atomic swap implementation project into sub-grants, because it would create a lot of overhead in orchestrating freeing up time for 5 people to work on it (and convince these people to take the risk), and not having secured funding to do so.
-
lederstrumpf
<ErCiccione[m] "I see that some suggestions from"> yes, I remember that particular suggestion from you
-
rehrar
but there is a similar risk in a huge project with major price movements
-
rehrar
splitting it up lessens that risk somewhat
-
zkao
erciccione_[m]: audit the implementation before the implementation is done?
-
ErCiccione[m]
lederstrumpf: It wasn't just me, many members of the community agreed :)
-
rehrar
are you saying your five people will see the project through to completion even if the price drops dramatically and future payouts are much less?
-
zkao
rehrar: we will pay in xmr
-
zkao
1 xmr = 1xmr always
-
zkao
its fungible
-
rehrar
true, but people might say "yeah, I need to leave this project because I have bills to pay"
-
rehrar
and then 1xmr=1xmr isn't worth jack :D
-
rehrar
but aight, if you're confident in your team's staying power, then that answers that for me
-
zkao
rehrar: we are used to this stuff, we got paid in crypto a bunch of times before, and we know how to hedge it if needed
-
ErCiccione[m]
zkao[m]: Sorry, i mispoke. I meant auditing your proposal and the math behind it, before a team start to imlement it
-
dEBRUYNE
I'd personally like to see some kind of partnering with a DEX before the community funds this
-
rehrar
one thing to note, the case for splitting up the proposal has generally revolved around anonimal (kovri) and michael (hardware)
-
dEBRUYNE
I am a bit worried that otherwise we may have an expensive project that sees little use (though valuable)
-
ErCiccione[m]
As i said the last time, i don't think we should fund a 7 months proposal. We did it twice, we got burnt twice. Anything can happen in 7 months
-
rehrar
both anonimal and michael are individuals rather than teams, and the dynamics are very different
-
dEBRUYNE
I am also of the opinion that it would be more prudent to split it up in a few proposals
-
dEBRUYNE
Especially given that 280k is quite a large sum
-
Inge-
+1 splitting it up
-
h4sh3d2
we believe that if we ask for funding for, for example, writing specs, there will be little interest in people to fund it
-
ErCiccione[m]
yeah. I would be ok with 2 proposals
-
rehrar
splitting in half rather than three seems like a decent compromise then?
-
Inge-
That pretty much halves the risk to the community
-
zkao
we believe that if we ask for funding for, for example, writing specs, there will be little interest in people to fund it, and additionally little interest for us to take the risk, as mentioned above.
-
lederstrumpf
no, even splitting in half means there's only half a PoC
-
ErCiccione[m]
h4sh3d2: I don't believe that would be the case. Especially if it's known that it wpould nbe the 1st part of a "double" proposals
-
rehrar
the community gets the opportunity to reevaluate at half time how things are going and whether we're satisfied. But if it's running the way of kovri, then we don't have to continue
-
rehrar
lederstrumpf: this happened already with kovri, and we funded it all the way anyways
-
rehrar
*despite us funding it all the way anyways
-
selsta
Does anyone know how much atomic swaps are used in other cryptos? Do decentralized exchanges use them?
-
jwinterm
rehrar: in theory with milestones written into a full proposal that is almost the same
-
jwinterm
I guess except people don't get their money back it just goes into general fund
-
rehrar
jwinterm: this I do agree with, and is something I think isn't talked about
-
ErCiccione[m]
You guys have to consider that the monero community cannot take all the risks
-
dEBRUYNE
selsta: UNISWAP is quite popular I'd say
-
rehrar
actually, why are the milestones not part of these discussions, eh?
-
ErCiccione[m]
I don't agree with that. The funds would be already collected. Which is the point in discussion
-
lederstrumpf
@rehrar: we've got 16 milestones in total. the community has 16 opportunities to review
-
jwinterm
uniswap is not exactly the same as it is only for eth and its own tokens, not for actual different base currency swaps
-
rehrar
to speak what nobody wants to say, "wasted" money would go to the GF and pay my salary, and not everyone might want that
-
lederstrumpf
at any of these 16 milestones, if the community is not happy, payment is not unlocked
-
ErCiccione[m]
Otherwise we could just fund the MRL for an entier year and have 12 milestones. If it's the same thing, why don't we do that?
-
jwinterm
selsta: there was a lightning powered exchange that allowed btc-ltc swaps, but it saw so little use they shut it down I think, sparkswap
-
h4sh3d2
Because MRL works on different project that requires continuous funding, and it was chosed to be every quarter
-
rehrar
h4sh3d2, so you guys would not consider splitting it in half? it's an all or nothing deal?
-
h4sh3d2
I see this differently than a defined project
-
rehrar
like, let's just get the cards on the table
-
sarang
FYI am available for the next 20 minutes before I participate in an MCC panel
-
rehrar
rather than beat around the bush
-
ErCiccione[m]
h4sh3d2: No. it's every quarter specifically because people can see the work delivered and if they like it, they will fund the next proposal
-
rehrar
sarang: feel free to hop in on this discussion
-
lederstrumpf
> to speak what nobody wants to say, "wasted" money would go to the GF and pay my salary, and not everyone might want that
-
lederstrumpf
that simply means whoever does not want that and think it's a significant risk won't add funding, simple as that, and that's a risk we're willing to take
-
selsta
jwinterm: that’s my worry, atomic swaps seem to have little real life use at the moment and I doubt monero will change that, I would personally love to see the team work on monero-rs or other things :)
-
ErCiccione[m]
that's how all CCS proposal works. Funding you for 7 motnhs would be the exception, not the rule. And this exception costed a lot every time we conceded it
-
lederstrumpf
* > to speak what nobody wants to say, "wasted" money would go to the GF and pay my salary, and not everyone might want that
-
lederstrumpf
that simply means whoever does not want that and think it's a significant risk won't add funding, simple as that, and that's a risk we're willing to take
-
jwinterm
I do think the functionality is more "useful" being able to go from btc to xmr than btc to ltc, but I tend to agree with you selsta
-
rehrar
can I get an answer to my question please? Is this an all-or-nothing kind of thing? The team is not willing to split in half under any circumstances? Either we fund it all, or the proposal is retracted?
-
lederstrumpf
rehrar: yes, coordination cost for 5 developers will be too high if we split
-
rehrar
ok
-
rehrar
so we can stop talking about splitting, because it's not an option. The question becomes then, are we for or against moving the proposal as is.
-
ErCiccione[m]
I remember dEBRUYNE proposed to have one single proposal that would get accepted all together, but the funds would be collected at distance of 3/4 months (as a double ccs proposal) that could be a solution.
-
rehrar
(as is meaning in terms of funding, not necessarily content which can still be tweaked)
-
lederstrumpf
we plan to leave the ccs open for 3 months anyway
-
sarang
This may have been discussed anyway, but there was a suggestion to obtain more formal review/auditing prior to funding an implementation
-
ErCiccione[m]
If there is no intention to split in two or to find a middle way, i am against moving to funding required. Trust should go both ways
-
sarang
(sorry, am splitting my attention here and the MCC event)
-
ErCiccione[m]
sarang: Yeah i mentioned that early. Would be good to have the team's opinion on that
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> If sarang is taking some time out, do the team working on atomic swaps become MRL?
-
jwinterm
what would be the rationale for not opening the proposal up to funding? only because it is too long of a performance period and anonimal and tewinget existed in the past?
-
h4sh3d2
sarang: we're on the process with academics, but as all of this takes time (CCS and reviews) we prefer to do it in parallel
-
sarang
Yeah, to be clear, I am not requesting funding for the next quarter
-
TheCharlatan
cankerwort we are all mrl :)
-
sarang
MRL isn't some big formal thing
-
sarang
There are many contributors!
-
rehrar
MRL is in all of our hearts
-
jwinterm
I mean, if people want to fund it, and it is a reasonably constructed proposal, why should there be a few gate keepers that get veto power because they think it should be broken up in two?
-
lederstrumpf
> ErCiccione: Trust should go both ways
-
lederstrumpf
Funds for every milestone are locked until we deliver - there's no trust required that we'll "run away with the money"
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> I think if the funding window of 3 months is acceptable, then the big headline number is less of an issue
-
rehrar
jwinterm: yes, this has been brought up before. People have different expectations as to how the CCS works.
-
xmrscott[m]
jwinterm: Agreed
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> And milestone releases get discusses at these meeetings right?
-
rehrar
and actually, that was one of the reasons for the GF transparency report. People were uncomfortable with putting money in incomplete CCS's for it to go to the GF when they didn't know what the money was for.
-
ErCiccione[m]
lederstrumpf: Again. I really repeated this many times. The problem is not the "run away with the momey", the problem is that in 7 months a lot can happen, in this case a lot can happen with 7 people. We don't fund long proposals for a reason, i don't see why we should make an exception now
-
ErCiccione[m]
*for many reasons
-
rehrar
Well, now we know. So it, in essence, allows us to merge more proposals, and people can donate with the knowledge of where the money will go if it 'fails'
-
rehrar
so they can weigh all of that and make an informed decision of whether or not to donate
-
lederstrumpf
@cankerwort: yes, they get discussed here or in similar channels that we list in the proposal
-
jwinterm
I am not super up to speed on all this, but my cursory investigation leads me to believe these guys have their shit together to a much greater degree than anonimal full of psychedelics and tewinget the kerbal space racer
-
nioc
:)
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Is Rehrar deciding if milestones get met a conflict of interest?
-
rehrar
fyi, I think it best I don't vote on CCS requests anymore. People will say COI if I say yes on an unpopular proposal. Because the odds of it going to GF may be higher.
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Idk who usually decides
-
rehrar
cankerwort luigi1111 does
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: I think that's fair
-
jwinterm
who does vote? is it a secret ballot by core team?
-
jwinterm
sorry for stupid logistics questions
-
rehrar
vote on what whether a milestone is finished?
-
sarang
It is certainly true that this proposal is exceptionally clear and well planned out, if that was a concern
-
jwinterm
yes, but I was actually asking about moving ccs to funding
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Maybe milestone releases should be actively discussed in these meetings as much as CCS proposals are
-
rehrar
non-contentious milestone work is done solely by luigi1111. It's been delegated to him. Contentious stuff is usually discussed by core.
-
rehrar
*all of core
-
jwinterm
and for moving something to funding?
-
rehrar
luigi1111: has done a good job of listening to the community. Occasionally we'll talk with core about the most contentious ones.
-
jwinterm
so it's just "loose consensus"
-
rehrar
But unless something is very negative (i.e. xeagu proposals) or lack of interest it's not shut down
-
selsta
jwinterm: luigi decides
-
rehrar
it's why we have several still open ideas form a while ago
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> The team did say they were OK with the funding sitting open for 3 months? I think that lessens concerns
-
rehrar
yes
-
jwinterm
.luigi
-
monerobux
🍄 luigi is doing. mario is not doing luigi is doing 🍄
-
jwinterm
thanks :)
-
sarang
Can the team speak a bit about the idea of auditing/reviewing in parallel to development?
-
rehrar
selsta: not 100% true. In the case of super contentious ones, it's discussed with core
-
rehrar
ok. sarang you have the floor.
-
rehrar
er, the team, I guess, since he passed it off to them
-
sarang
Heh, I'll have to jump away shortly to do a panel...
-
h4sh3d2
sarang: what do you mean exactly?
-
h4sh3d2
ah
-
sarang
Well, suppose a major issue arises
-
sarang
in the audit
-
sarang
and it's no longer deemed "safe" for some definition of "safe"
-
hyc
y'know, in my day, people just fucking wrote code. that's what open source projects are about. not about funding.
-
sarang
People need to pay bills, eat, etc.
-
hyc
if you can't afford to spend the time to write it, then don't do it. period.
-
hyc
this isn't a commercial enterprise. you shuldn't expect a salary.
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> But they are donations
-
ErCiccione[m]
i would say that asking fundings is reasonable. Ask absolute trust from the community you are asking funds to without making any concession and taking any risk, is not ok
-
sarang
hyc: I have received regular full-time funding
-
hyc
asking for donations is reasonable. asking donations and saying "here is the price tag" is not asking donations.
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Let's say the funding Ccs was open for 3 months and only received 50% of the asking price
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Do the devs do half the plan?
-
hyc
MRL required long-term funding because research is inherently open-ended
-
ErCiccione[m]
donations is probably the wrong term here. "community funds" would probably be more appropriate
-
h4sh3d2
about auditing, it's always possible to find big problems, but I think that we now know enough about the problem to react and modify the protocol if needed
-
sarang
ok thanks h4sh3d2
-
rehrar
cankerwort I think they meant leave the ideas proposal up for three months before moving on if it hasn't been merged
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Oh thats different
-
lederstrumpf
@cankerwort: the proposal states that "if [the ccs proposal is] materially underfunded until 31.12.2020, we'll either (1) agree with the community to deliver a subset of the deliverables and collect the funds, or (2) allocate the funds for active Monero Research Lab contributors."
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Fantastic
-
rehrar
oh, I guess I was wrong. Sorry.
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> So what is the worry?
-
rehrar
one thing's for sure. We gain very little by having this proposal sit and discuss it next meeting and the one after that
-
rehrar
we will use the same arguments and say the same things
-
h4sh3d2
that said, we don't want to wait until 31.12 to start working on the project. we like working with/for monero and we did it for the past years (I started monero-rs without any funds, I just f'kin did it like hyc would say ;)
-
rehrar
and minds will not be changed. By now, I think most arguments have been put forth. I'll take this to luigi1111, and will, further, take to core to discuss
-
ErCiccione[m]
So we are not considering funding an audit?
-
zkao
sarang: we've been invited to write a joint paper on extending our research by formally proving the security of the construction, e.g. by using the global UC framework, and h4sh3d is considering doing it
-
rehrar
in some sense, the CCS may be somewhat redefined by a decision like this. Now that there is total transparency on CCS and GF funds, do we need gatekeepers for the CCS or do we let people decide how to donate their money to any reasonable proposal (reasonable as determined by luigi/core)?
-
sarang
zkao: nice!
-
jwinterm
personally I think the latter makes sense for the time being rehrar
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: Why would we change the structure of the CCS now?
-
lederstrumpf
@ErCiccione: funding an audit is simply a parallel discussion
-
jwinterm
it's not like there's a glut of 100 proposals awaiting move to funding right?
-
selsta
yea we change the CCS now?
-
rehrar
ErCiccione[m]: the CCS has always been nebulous with little defining. There is no restructuring.
-
selsta
maybe I’m not understanding what you are suggesting
-
rehrar
gatekeepers were never hard coded in either btw
-
ErCiccione[m]
We have always been quite clear about vetting proposals and not just letting everything go to funding required
-
hyc
it's not simply "accept any proposal and let the community decide if they want to fund it" - we are vetting proposals first
-
ErCiccione[m]
yeah, why should we change that now?
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Basic vetting
-
ErCiccione[m]
what would even be the point of discussing proposals then?
-
ErCiccione[m]
doesn't make any sense
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> And the proposal has a fall back for being underfunded or not delivering (in the form of milestones)
-
rehrar
cankerwort, yes. How deep does 'vetting' go? Do we make just vet to the extent that we make sure it's reasonably structured for success? Do we go further to say that 'it's not best use of funds' based off of our own personal definition of 'best use'?
-
jwinterm
but if there is no clear definition of "vetting"...
-
rehrar
^
-
rehrar
for some, vet just may be quality control in ensuring it's not "hurr durr, I'll do this job maybe for... I don't know. Ten Monero?"
-
ErCiccione[m]
So where the funds would go? General fund? i don't agree with that, and you rehrar clearly biased proposing this.
-
rehrar
...ugh
-
jwinterm
if vetting means: (1) assessing that the proposer is technically capable, and (2) there are clearly defined milestones
-
ErCiccione[m]
I don't agree with reducing the amount of vetting at all, but in case, i would want a deep discussion about how the funds will be managed
-
h4sh3d2
or (2) allocate the funds for active Monero Research Lab contributors.
-
jwinterm
then I don't see why this wouldn't move to funding required
-
h4sh3d2
that was another possibility we wrote in the CCS
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> The issue would be that sarang won't have a funding request up to be funded if this falla through
-
selsta
Let’s say I want to CCS a Monero themed web browser. Would that be a good use of funds? Why should there be no vetting of legit proposals that are irrelevant to the project?
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: It's not about you. But you have to agree that you obviously have interest in making a proposal like that
-
rehrar
goodness. I guess all the good will I've built is gone.
-
rehrar
but whatever, I won't make this about me. a conversation for another time.
-
rehrar
Any other remarks on this proposal?
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: Why is that a matter of goodwill? Why does it always have to be a matter of trust?
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> I say open it for funding
-
rehrar
I'd rather not go in circles all day, and we have more to do.
-
rehrar
ErCiccione[m]: I'm on the side of not overly burdening with red tape to allow a FOSS project to do what it does best. I support vetting to a reasonable degree, but if someone takes 'vetting' to mean something above what I think, then I'll speak out about it.
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> The formal paper sound like a good idea
-
rehrar
the 'vetting' of proposal has increased significantly in levels of scrutiny as the project went on. Some may think that's good. Some may think that's bad.
-
rehrar
But don't pull 'why would we change now?' You don't understand. It's already changed since the beginning.
-
rehrar
The level of vetting is different today than it was two years ago. Or four. I can provide plenty of evidence for this.
-
rehrar
It has reached a threshold that I personally think is excessive.
-
hyc
seems like the nature of projets has changed too
-
rehrar
And anyone can disregard my opinion of not increasing vetting because of COI because of my position if they want to do that. It's kinda stupid, but they can.
-
rehrar
Such is my view on the topic. /end
-
h4sh3d2
hyc: can you elaborate on that?
-
hyc
the value of the network has increased, which means the cost of mistakes has increased.
-
jwinterm
so now we just wait and see if luigi1111 does thumbs up or thumbs down?
-
selsta
rehrar: what were the last declined projects?
-
selsta
rejected*
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: Just to be clear, i'm not disreguarding your opinion because of your biases. Beside the fact that they should be taken in consideration, i'm saying that the system work and i don't see a reason to change it now.
-
rehrar
-
rehrar
-
hyc
4 years ago if a project was buggy, we would have shrugged it off, quietly fixed it, and moved on. now, if a project is buggy, a lot of real $$ can be lost.
-
jwinterm
also endo
-
ErCiccione[m]
We had entire discussions about vetting for quite some time and we always agreed the structure we had was fine, if you are proposing to change that, we need an equally big discussion
-
rehrar
-
selsta
You act like we would reject a lot of the CCS proposals. We don’t. People are asking legit questions and I don’t see how that is a bad thing.
-
rehrar
and xeagu
-
rehrar
selsta: there have been several complaints, publicly and privately, from people who feel the CCS has become a place of gatekeepers that stifles innovation and passion
-
hyc
you can't pretend that things aren't different now than 4 years ago. so naturally the degree of scrutiny is changed.
-
rehrar
many of these have been made known to me in various forms
-
rehrar
and some of the names that have spoken these thoughts were what we would consider big boys. I'll see if I can't get them to speak out publicly so you don't have to take me at my word here.
-
selsta
rehrar: I don’t see these rejected proposals you are talking about.
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: could you share the public complaints? I don't think that asking "believe me, pepople complain" it's fair. Especially because we already discussed this matter
-
hyc
the alternative is, we do no discussion at all, and just collate proposals.
-
hyc
then the CCS is nothing more than a central clearinghouse
-
rehrar
ErCiccione[m]: I literally just said I'll see if I can't get the big boys to speak publicly on this.
-
ErCiccione[m]
and most of the people agreed vetting weas necessary, i haven't seen anybody complain about that publicly
-
selsta
I don’t see any "innovative" project that has been rejected.
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Was there anymore talk about partial funding of this project by Nano people? Do I remember reading that somewhere?
-
jwinterm
I am not saying that I am complaining, but I agree with rehrar that it seems the current "vetting" is nebulous and some more rigorous definition of what that actually means would be good
-
ErCiccione[m]
jwinterm: Agree with that. Disagree with "vetting it's nebolous, let's just not do it"
-
selsta
The community does not have unlimited funds, some basic vetting is in the interest of the project.
-
hyc
jwinterm: nebulous is probably what it needs to be. handled on a case by case basis.
-
hyc
nor does the community at large have the technical sophistication to judge all of the proposals
-
rehrar
hyc: on this I agree. Keeping it nebulous is in our best interests.
-
jwinterm
in the immediate case of h4sh3d2 for instance, if it is thumbs down from luigi, then him and his team have spent a considerable amount of time crafting a proposal, which if it isn't even considered for funding, I think would discourage others from attempting
-
rehrar
A proposal that will cost us 3 XMR doesn't need the same level of power vetting as one that will cost us 2000
-
jwinterm
s/even considered for/moved to
-
monerobux
jwinterm meant to say: in the immediate case of h4sh3d2 for instance, if it is thumbs down from luigi, then him and his team have spent a considerable amount of time crafting a proposal, which if it isn't moved to funding, I think would discourage others from attempting
-
selsta
I doubt that luigi will do that :P
-
jwinterm
if the process were more clearly defined, it would allow people to better judge if it is worth their time to even write a proposal
-
hyc
btw, the term "funding required" has never sat well with me. to be pedantic, it should be "funding desired"
-
jwinterm
open for funding
-
jwinterm
I agree
-
rehrar
what usually happens is a proposal is not explicitly rejected, but just isn't merged and is left open. If community sentiment changed, it may get merged in the future. But often people get tired of waiting, don't reply anymore, the proposal gets stale, and then its closed for lack of interest.
-
jwinterm
required is not good word
-
rehrar
if we're being honest about what usually happens :D
-
ErCiccione[m]
jwinterm: Should we consider approving because otherwise other people would be discouraged from even opening a proposal? Can't that be considered as a given act if you want a lot of money? I mean, do we really have to reward with money every breath somebody takes?
-
hyc
^^
-
hyc
if this sort of thing is all it takes to discourage you, then writing open source is not for you.
-
jwinterm
no, I'm just saying that if there's no clear requirements on what will get moved to funding, then it may discourage people from trying
-
selsta
-
selsta
this has been rejected, the whole project’s github is dead for months
-
selsta
would that have been a good use of funds?
-
jwinterm
with that being said, actual academic and government funding of proposals is extremely nebulous
-
jwinterm
but there's a lot more competition there
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: That means that people are not interested in the proposal though. So makes sense that it's closed
-
jwinterm
and not sure we want to strive to be like the government
-
rehrar
ok, we need to move on.
-
rehrar
I will bring everything here to core and discuss.
-
hyc
this model is all wrong. it's putting a commercial business model on a community volunteer environment.
-
rehrar
alexanarcho[m]: you here?
-
hyc
cart before horse. open source development works like this: you have an idea and are motivated to implement it. other people may decide it's a good idea after you finish it, and decide to contribute.
-
rehrar
-
jwinterm
hyc: given that the fluffy record thing was funded, I don't think you can say this proposal under discussion is anywhere near the degree of "commercial business" that was
-
hyc
your motivation to complete it doesn't depend on the existence of funding.
-
jwinterm
what that was called, sailfish or whatever
-
TheCharlatan
hyc, is this the direction you want the ccs to move into? There have been many projects funded in the past with clear business interests included.
-
hyc
the record thing? I had reservations about that too, but ok.
-
h4sh3d2
hyc: I agree in some extent, but why CCS then. You just need a reward system
-
ErCiccione[m]
jwinterm: I for example, think that funding that proposal was a mistake, even if IIRC i was in favour at the time. It happened also a lot of years ago
-
zkao
hyc: we started this project almost 4 years ago, how much longer do we have to wait to get funding?
-
ErCiccione[m]
Since then i don't believe anything of that kind was approved
-
zkao
now that we know how to make it a reality, we want ot make it a reality
-
hyc
nobody is stopping you zkao
-
zkao
yes, that is why the protocol is complete now, because nobody stopped us
-
rehrar
ok, if alexanarcho isn't here, do we have any general comments on this tipxmr.live?
-
rehrar
-
rehrar
meeting is running very long. :P
-
rehrar
Discussion on these matters can, of course, continue after it's adjourned.
-
rehrar
But some people (like msvb-lab) are already leaving and had hoped to discuss some things. So let's make sure we respect people's time by looking at the last proposal to discuss.
-
selsta
rehrar: I also find it a bit weird that you call community members giving feedback on porposals "gatekeepers". No one here outside core decides anything so they don’t gatekeep anything.
-
selsta
proposals*
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Are they planning monetise the tipper?
-
lederstrumpf
@cankerwort: they are planning to monetise their hosting of the tipper
-
rehrar
but it will be FOSS
-
lederstrumpf
but anyone else can use their code to compete with them on this
-
lederstrumpf
yes
-
rehrar
any yays or nays or questions?
-
rehrar
ok, ajs-mob you still here?
-
rehrar
last point of discussion
-
ajs-mob
yes
-
rehrar
Monero Kon thingy.
-
rehrar
go for it
-
ajs-mob
COVID restrictions in some countries are being extended until March and it seems vaccines won't be available until at least mid-2021 according to some experts.
-
ajs-mob
Should we.. (A) push Konferenco to 2022, (B) make it a virtual event, or (C) go on with the conference in 2021 even with the risk of government restrictions, low ticket sales and turn out.
-
» sarang returns
-
jwinterm
seems ok to me rehrar, not sure how much use it would get, but would be cool option to have
-
rehrar
jwinterm: agree
-
jwinterm
ajs-mob: can it be hybrid of B/C
-
rehrar
ajs-mob: I think we can wait until end of the year to have a more clear idea.
-
rehrar
but yeah, maybe a hybrid conference might be cool
-
jwinterm
only get a small or free venue with limited tickets, but have virtual option too
-
ajs-mob
(D) B & C
-
rehrar
experts have been saying a lot of things, and a lot of things are still up in the air. I totally understand that something like this needs a lot of prior planning and prior fund raising though.
-
jwinterm
I am biased because I would like to go in person if possible, so I guess would like to try and keep that door open
-
hyc
safe bet seems to be pure virtual
-
rehrar
if we're going pure virtual, then we can do it anytime.
-
xmrscott[m]
My vote would be B
-
jwinterm
I am attending my first virtual conference next weekend
-
jwinterm
expecting it to suck but hoping to be surprised
-
rehrar
although virtual was discussed before when this happened and people weren't really for it
-
rehrar
and yeah, if I'm being honest, I wouldn't attend a virtual conference
-
selsta
I would be for (A), a lot of value of events is them being in person.
-
rehrar
I mean a MoneroKon one, sure. But like, literally any other conference, probably not. It's just.....not fun?
-
hyc
for myself, I canceled a conf talk in March this year and am glad I did. 2 people I know of contracted covid at that conf, 1 died.
-
xmrscott[m]
This is fair. Why 'attend' when you can just watch the recordings later
-
xmrscott[m]
(If it's virtual only)
-
rehrar
xmrscott[m]. Yes. There is just no way of emulating the way of talking and hanging out with friends.
-
ErCiccione[m]
I wuld be for A or B. C is madness in this situation guys
-
jwinterm
if it is virtual only I would definitely encourage as much "hallway chatter" as possible
-
jwinterm
VR room, IRC room, some games
-
jwinterm
but it's honestly not even close to the same
-
rehrar
I mean, let's do B. Make it virtual. It'll suck, but there may be some value generated and we can assess afterwards whether it was worth it. If it (surprisingly) IS worth it, then we can maybe have two kons a year. One physical and one virutal.
-
hyc
yay, double the management workload!
-
rehrar
meh. Yeah. actually. A.
-
jwinterm
lol
-
rehrar
screw virtual conferences. Just remembered Defcon. It was...blurg.
-
ajs-mob
A
-
rehrar
MCC is happening right now, as you know.
-
sarang
The MCC virtual conference was cool, except that they didn't have it set up to do questions for talks
-
sarang
But that was to avoid the audience speaking and interrupting
-
rehrar
they're pouring tons of money into making it good
-
sarang
also RIP laptop battery while running the VR interface
-
rehrar
1. We don't have nearly that level of money.
-
selsta
my laptop can’t even do VR stuff :(
-
rehrar
2. Who knows. Maybe it'll still be meh.
-
rehrar
sarang: what VR program are they using?
-
selsta
mozilla
-
rehrar
ok
-
rehrar
alright guys, we can call the meeting here
-
rehrar
we're well over time, and I'm sure many of you want to get on with your lives
-
rehrar
thank you for coming
-
rehrar
Meeting officially adjourned.
-
rehrar
But, as always, this room is an open forum for discussion of ideas, so if anyone wants to continue on any of the previous topics, please do.
-
sarang
rehrar: that Mozilla tool you had played with
-
sarang
Hubs?
-
sarang
Looks like self-hosted
-
rehrar
Hubs, yeah.
-
sarang
selsta: I didn't actually use VR
-
rehrar
They got custom avatars made for them too.
-
sarang
just the screen interface
-
sarang
yeah
-
rehrar
Made custom islands also.
-
rehrar
Dropped the big bucks.
-
rehrar
If they can't make it successful, no one can.
-
sarang
Yeah, the rooms were crazy
-
sarang
The stage I used was a cave with lava
-
selsta
sarang: yea my laptop is too bad for it even without VR lol
-
sarang
and the lobby was like a castle with a big bridge
-
sarang
and portals to the stages
-
sarang
selsta: they had livestreams too
-
rehrar
I wish I had the business that can drop a lot of money on making things like this. :D
-
sarang
It definitely beats a Zoom-type conference like ESORICS did
-
sarang
Speaking "into the void" was really unnerving
-
jwinterm
someone can just spin up a minecraft server
-
hyc
there yago
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Can we ask nicely if we can reuse their world with a Monero reskin?
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> Fluffy was involved
-
sarang
Yeah, Fluffy did the introductions for my stage today
-
sarang
He had a cool pony avatar
-
luigi1111w
lots of words and lots of pings
-
sarang
If there were to be a MonKon virtually, I'd recommend something like MCC did
-
sarang
You can mimic the hallway talk stuff
-
sarang
and if you use a single room for talks (as opposed to separating out the audience), you could have questions
-
sarang
and just rely on participants not to be jerks
-
jwinterm
I'm gonna submit a CCS to define strict requirements for CCS
-
hyc
you can't have central mute control?
-
jwinterm
sarang: ^
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> VR moderators
-
sarang
hyc: no idea how that works
-
sarang
they had the "Upstream" room
-
sarang
where we spoke
-
sarang
and there were three "audience" avatars who were apparently stream cameras
-
sarang
and then a "Downstream" room where the audience could watch
-
sarang
I don't know the details on how that was precisely arranged
-
sarang
Speakers who joined the Upstream room were placed into this small holodeck room with a door that led to the stage
-
sarang
it literally looked like the holodeck!
-
sarang
pretty slick setup
-
rehrar
luigi1111: please read. Worth reading.
-
sarang
And then the slides were projected above the stage... but you could duplicate the slides in front of you, so you could face the "audience" while controlling them
-
sarang
I was a bit skeptical at first, but looking back I really liked it
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> But you couldn't see/interact with the audience?
-
sarang
Nope
-
sarang
But: if MonKonVR used a single room for audience and speakers, you could
-
sarang
I dunno how the sound broadcast works, since volume decreases as you move away from avatars
-
sarang
I assume they fixed that so the audience could hear us all properly
-
sarang
I could only see the camera avatars
-
sarang
I assume they were streaming into the audience Downstream room, and perhaps to other livestream endpoints
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> They must have had a whole team of people working on that
-
sarang
It seemed like quite the operation
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> A reskin would be the only realistic option
-
sarang
The environments were insane
-
sarang
When you enter the castle-style lobby, there are Rick-and-Morty-type portals for the stages and other doors with sponsor names on them
-
luigi1111w
is my understanding that [it works in theory (according to vtnerd, sarang(?), I certainly haven't spent the time yet to understand it) assuming no novel attacks are discovered due to it being "non-standard"], but [it's a huge funding request with obviously uncertain outcomes] correct?
-
sarang
I had some questions about some steps in the protocol that aren't blockers
-
sarang
And I think the overall privacy implications are TBD
-
sarang
But the construction is not obviously wrong (but I have not seen a formal security model for it)
-
luigi1111w
that sounds like a yes
-
sarang
I don't want to vouch for its correctness in practice, since there are lots of aspects to formally consider
-
luigi1111w
I'm not capturing all the nuance in my statement, agreed
-
luigi1111w
maybe "not obviously wrong" is the simplest description for now
-
ErCiccione[m]
luigi1111w: What do you think about funding a 7 months long instead of splitting it in two? There are conflicting opinions about it
-
luigi1111
well I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. splitting or not seems like a distraction
-
ErCiccione[m]
Personally i don't have interest in funding an atomic swap proposal, especially without knowing if anybody will actually use it, but if that's what people want, i'm ok with it. My concerns are mostly about 1) huge amount of funding to be collected immediately, for a 7 months long proposal 2) No formal audits of the protocol are offered. That sums up my opinion and i'm done with that.
-
kayabaNerve
I was late to this conversation so I didn't want to chime in as it would've derailed the MoneroKon conversation!
-
kayabaNerve
Atomic Swaps are used by multiple DEXs. While Ethereum DEXs only support ERC20s (generally; same theory goes for EOS/WAVES/whatever SC platform), Bisq is the only multisig DEX I know of
-
kayabaNerve
That leaves BlockDX, AtomicDEX, DCR DEX, and Luxgate; the latter two not currently usable, ordered by personal preference
-
kayabaNerve
Though AtomicDEX is notably larger
-
xmrmatterbridge
<cankerwort> I wonder if BISQ could use this implementation
-
xmrscott[m]
RE: Utilization, I think there are some interesting situations that could be revealed via atomic swaps
-
kayabaNerve
Every single one has expressed interest in atomic swaps :) Though I don't believe Luxgate as the manpower to add it to the TODO. The rest already have
-
xmrscott[m]
Not only Bisq, but in general arbitrage
-
ErCiccione[m]
Sorry, i retract my "i don't have interest in funding an atomic swap proposal". I actually support the idea, but i cannot go into detail of the change of opinion for now :P
-
xmrscott[m]
Sell XMR high (because it's fungible), but the person selling has access to an offramp that's not going to freeze funds, etc
-
kayabaNerve
ankerwort: Theoretically, yes. That said, I'm not sure if they use atomic swaps even for BTC/LTC. They're pretty set on multisig IIRC.
-
xmrscott[m]
So they can sell BTC w/o issue into fiat or whatever to buy more XMR
-
kayabaNerve
And then yes, new opportunities open up thanks to atomic swaps.
-
ErCiccione[m]
I'm not sure if they use atomic swaps even for BTC/LTC -> They don't AFAIK
-
kayabaNerve
Pretty sure not
-
luigi1111w
I am missing where they get funding immediately
-
luigi1111w
released*
-
kayabaNerve
Bisq has colored BTC
-
kayabaNerve
Oh :P
-
jwinterm
kayabaNerve: I thought atomic "dex" was just theater and it was just like a regular coinswap site that was pretending to be a dex
-
kayabaNerve
Oh. I don't like it, personally, but it's live and has volume
-
jwinterm
but it's not actually a dex, right?
-
kayabaNerve
It's a DEX, but they also have subatomic swaps for ARRR (where ARRR is ZEC forcing usage of ZK-SNARKS).
-
nioc
luigi1111w: not released immediately, 16 milestones I believe
-
kayabaNerve
Subatomic swaps are completely trustful, but still not centralized.
-
zkao
kayabaNerve: what is a subatomic swap?
-
kayabaNerve
zkao: Bullshit
-
ErCiccione[m]
luigi1111w: they wouldn't. If the confusion is because of my words, i meant "collected from the community"
-
luigi1111w
ah, ok
-
nioc
not sure if serious :)
-
kayabaNerve
It's completely trustful. It's basically sending signatures for TXs
-
zkao
ok
-
kayabaNerve
They claim it can resolve in seconds, and you need to manually set a trust threshold with the other party
-
kayabaNerve
They are still interested in this. That said, they don't seem to want to offer funding.
-
needmoney90
monero transactions confirm the instant they are in the mempool if you manually set your trust thresholds low enough
-
zkao
is there are real dex, doing atomic swaps, with volume, right now?
-
kayabaNerve
I mean, they did offer me funding to completely integrate XMR into Atomic DEX, including the new swap path. 2000 EUR for the two months of work it'd be.
-
kayabaNerve
So... not really worth mentioning.
-
zkao
haha
-
kayabaNerve
BlockDX/Atomic DEX depending on the pairs
-
kayabaNerve
Again, ARRR is subatomic
-
kayabaNerve
But they do have proper atomic swaps
-
kayabaNerve
And then there's a couple in development
-
kayabaNerve
And I was head hunted to build one. Joining a discussion on it Monday :P
-
kayabaNerve
Because of my work on ASMR
-
kayabaNerve
But I don't even know its name, as its completely new, and likely won't have the time. My comment is this would open a LOT of doors for XMR, especially outside of DEXs, just for interop'ing with other chains in general
-
kayabaNerve
XMR DeFi anyone? :P
-
kayabaNerve
Joking about that horrible idea
-
luigi1111w
can I haz some xmr farming plz
-
kayabaNerve
Not to mention, considering the protocol enables other cryptocurrencies, we'd get good will and we can play off those other cryptocurrencies strengths. Nano, for example. I don't really see it as an angle for the XMR community, especially due to XMR's mempool rules/block confirmation times. That said, I'd never trust 0-conf, and 2 confirms is still 4 minutes.
-
kayabaNerve
But of course, that relies on someone building an app to manage the two. This CCS proposal isn't about magically solving all of XMRs theoretical desires. It's about enabling them for a variety of platforms and services.
-
kayabaNerve
I'm personally not against splitting it, but I understand why the rest of the team wants to keep it together. Due to the amount of milestones involved, I really don't see a risk other than this initial proposal may not get funding in the first place
-
kayabaNerve
But I'd hop the community would recognize its value, and I think discussions with other projects may contribute
-
lederstrumpf
luigi1111w: Yes, funding is split into 3 milestones, and in total segregated into 16 submilestones; each portion is released at the completion of every associated submilestone. we can only move to the next full milestone (M2 or M3) by completing all submilestones of the prior full milestone (M1 or M2). For instance, we don't receive a payout for completing the swap library (M2.B) before having successfully
-
lederstrumpf
completed all submilestones of the specification milestone (M1.A-C).
-
luigi1111w
got it
-
lederstrumpf
-
kayabaNerve
The only other thing I can suggest is modifying the CCS rules so if a large proposal fails, the community can submit spend proofs for a return (out of everyone who submitted proofs, the funds are distributed equally, capped to their paid amount). That said, I don't think that would go well due to precedent/the removal of privacy/need for further development to the CCS website.
-
luigi1111w
agreed
-
luigi1111w
a bit tricky to consider these things, I'll have to think about it some more
-
kayabaNerve
That's my full statement on it :P There's a reason I didn't chime in earlier during the MK discussions ;)
-
kayabaNerve
That said, I completely vote for a digital MK. Viruses are scary. Imagine getting one on the computer with your Monero wallet :O
-
kayabaNerve
Seriously though. I really don't see any benefit in allocating funds to a very limited turn out event when we can add accessibility like never before and encourage safe practices.
-
kayabaNerve
But I also don't have the community knowledge to really comment
-
jwinterm
I just want to get out of my house
-
» jwinterm is a selfish jerk
-
kayabaNerve
I have a friend in Nano. They suggested the Nano Center, their version of the CCS.
-
jwinterm
poor guy
-
luigi1111w
thanks for being available for comments etc kayabaNerve
-
kayabaNerve
And then DCR has a DAO we can submit a funding proposal through, yet it requires permission from an established DAO member so...
-
kayabaNerve
Yeah, happy to help as I can :)
-
kayabaNerve
jwinterm: As a developer. Great guy
-
kayabaNerve
I mean, I assume he holds it and is subject to the recent price movements...
-
jwinterm
some guy tricked me into buying nano, now I'm a nanite
-
luigi1111w
oh and you too, lederstrumpf didn't realize it was 2 people since you are both colored the same lol
-
jwinterm
wow luigi1111w do all people of that color just look the same to you?
-
kayabaNerve
I like it. I think it's a great solution to payments, despite how important privacy is. I think it demonstrates a way for cryptocurrencies as a whole to move forward.
-
kayabaNerve
But that's my personal opinion and I don't want to shill it :P Especially as I'm working on my project
-
kayabaNerve
jwinterm: And you thought you were a jerk /s
-
jwinterm
kayabaNerve: I don't think the consensus mechanism of nano is very robust and I think the whole system is prone to falling apart due to spam if anyone actually cared to use it
-
lederstrumpf
no worries luigi1111w - would have been an interesting read if I and ErCiccione
-
kayabaNerve
I agree it has its flaws. Hence why I have my own project :P
-
lederstrumpf
had the same color ;)
-
jwinterm
oh are you one of the meros folks kayabaNerve?
-
kayabaNerve
And a hefty bag of XMR
-
kayabaNerve
*0 XMR. Never bought any. Why would I damage the state apparatus?
-
kayabaNerve
Boating accident
-
kayabaNerve
No further comment
-
kayabaNerve
jwinterm: Yeah. There's a reason ASMR is hosted by MerosCrypto ;)
-
kayabaNerve
And why it supported Meros before XMR :P
-
kayabaNerve
It supported Nano before XMR to, but that was just because my partner beat me to it. I got busy with other work...
-
kayabaNerve
But only a 1 day delay IIRC
-
jwinterm
cool, seems like an interesting twist on ye olde raiblocks
-
kayabaNerve
Thanks. :) I've been laying the ground work for stealth addresses and have been looking into CTs.
-
kayabaNerve
I fully understand SAs aren't privacy, just a tool to enable it; wont pull a Verge.
-
kayabaNerve
CTs are also pretty quick and offer a great deal of secure privacy without a trusted setup. They're also not the hardest thing to implement.
-
kayabaNerve
But I'm really hopeful for a good relationship with XMR as a whole. I truly love the project.
-
jwinterm
when do you guys think you're gonna go live?
-
kayabaNerve
That said, I don't have any money to spare and the project can't contribute to the CCS proposal :P
-
kayabaNerve
Ready by EOY, maybe Jan due to holidays, if all goes well
-
ErCiccione[m]
kayabaNerve:the community can submit spend proofs -> I think that would make it harder for people to contribute. I think would be better to create a dedicated fund for funded but not completed CCS proposals. This fund could be used for fudning other CCS proposals or for funding other development. Wasn't that the case for the old ffs or i am misremembering?
-
kayabaNerve
I did say can, not must.
-
kayabaNerve
So if they want a refund, beyond contributing to further development, they can opt of privacy. The size in which CCS proposals increase is already public.
-
suraeNoether
jwinterm: "I mean, if people want to fund it, and it is a reasonably constructed proposal, why should there be a few gate keepers that get veto power because they think it should be broken up in two?" <-- this is my thinking
-
kayabaNerve
But that's more of a discussion for the larger CCS I'm raising due to the size of this proposal
-
ErCiccione[m]
Yeah that makes sense.
-
suraeNoether
rehrar: "in some sense, the CCS may be somewhat redefined by a decision like this. Now that there is total transparency on CCS and GF funds, do we need gatekeepers for the CCS or do we let people decide how to donate their money to any reasonable proposal (reasonable as determined by luigi/core)?" <--- I'm generally in favor of more permissivity in CCS funding.
-
ErCiccione[m]
It's actually a good idea reguardless. If core is ok with that, we would only need somebody to code it up
-
kayabaNerve
And then if there's not enough funds for those who did, they'd get a percentage. If there is, they'd get it back. If there's more, they'd get back the 100% with the general fund getting the rest. Further discussions about usage of the general fund (specifically for other proposals...) is also good :)
-
suraeNoether
rehrar: "selsta: there have been several complaints, publicly and privately, from people who feel the CCS has become a place of gatekeepers that stifles innovation and passion" <--- I will freely admit I'm one of these people. there has been at least one project in the last year that got shut down whose goal was basic exploratory research. if that sort of basic level research stuff experiences a gate, it
-
suraeNoether
makes it that much harder for someone interested in doing what sarang or I was doing. less basic data to work with, less productivity, hamstringing researchers, and making it even harder to advertise productivity for future CCS requests. this leads to a research death spiral
-
suraeNoether
i don't want to jump into the conversation so late, but i wanted to pitch my two cents
-
suraeNoether
in general, i am in favor of more permissivity, because clamping down on the CCS is basically just a death squeeze on overall development, except for 3rd party corporate research or patent trolls or whatever, and no one wants that to be the primary route of monero progress
-
suraeNoether
just like (i think) most monero folks don't want a government agency starting to drive development
-
kayabaNerve
suraeNoether: Do you have any relation to sarang? Just curious
-
suraeNoether
i don't want to speak for sarang, but even an overall *sense* of gatekeeping is enough to act as a chilling effect
-
zkao
they're sisters
-
kayabaNerve
I know you're two different people (well, based on the fact you have two different nickserv accs). Just was initially confused due to "Noether"
-
kayabaNerve
Ah, got it :)
-
suraeNoether
we're in a band together
-
jwinterm
they're brothers in bald
-
h4sh3d[m]
Haha
-
zkao
hahaha
-
ErCiccione[m]
I think proposals have only been vetted well and not too strictly. I think we are already being already very permissive. I don't think any proposal was rejected without strong reasonings
-
ErCiccione[m]
In fact if i look at the past proposals, i don't see any that imo didn't deserve to be shut down.
-
ErCiccione[m]
We also need to consider that the community has not illimitate funds and many tend to fund everything because we already vetted the proposals
-
ErCiccione[m]
changing such system would mean change a well maintained equilibrium, and many aspect will need to be reconsidered.
-
kayabaNerve
I'm fine with the current level of vetting, personally, but I do feel a lot of new people are somewhat intimidated. With the spend proof solution, a lot of users would have more confidence in donating to higher risk projects, and as long as a core member agreed it was well intended, well defined, and likely (not for funding, but for completion)...
-
ErCiccione[m]
That's why i'm in general against a "fund everything" approach. Good proposals would be lost in the noise and people with poor proposals but nice marketing skills would benefit from such system, without considering the points i already made
-
rehrar
ErCiccione[m]: milestones already prevent this. Making sure they have sane milestones is how we keep money from being given to people who don't deserve it.
-
suraeNoether
ErCiccione[m]: just sharing my experience working with the CCS, and owning up to the fact that i'm one of the folks who's complained about this to others in the past.
-
ErCiccione[m]
kayabaNerve: I agree that's a good idea, especially if we also make a broader plan about the flow of money from/to a proposal and after
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: My point is again not about distributing money, but collecting it
-
suraeNoether
if we had dominant assurance where underfunded proposals automatically returned to sender after a certain period of time, would you have a different opinion about the "fund everything" approach?
-
dEBRUYNE
Given the limited amount of funding available, I'd say scrutiny is warranted
-
dEBRUYNE
If we get a lot of substandard proposals, it may deplete the available pool of funding quite quickly
-
luigi1111w
<jwinterm> wow luigi1111w do all people of that color just look the same to you? <= yes, the green people
-
ErCiccione[m]
suraeNoether: Partly, because we would still have the problem of the noise and the system would be "who word a proposal better wins". Which is not the case if people actually check the details and make questions
-
ErCiccione[m]
*ask questions
-
ErCiccione[m]
A certain degree of vetting is necessary in a system like the CCS IMO
-
dEBRUYNE
Some donors may also not have the technical capability to review certain proposals and assess their viability
-
dEBRUYNE
Thus essentially relying on others for the 'vetting process'
-
rehrar
Nobody disagrees with this. We disagree with the degree of vetting.
-
rehrar
Acting like lessening the vetting is saying no vetting and that's not true.
-
ErCiccione[m]
dEBRUYNE: exactly what i mean with "who word a proposal better wins"
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: How can the vetting be less than it actually is, considering the low amount of rejected proposals? Especially since if we look back, we were right in all of them IMO
-
rehrar
dEBRUYNE: this is not one of those cases. Tech people think this proposal of atomic swaps is well constructed and structured well with clear deliverables.
-
suraeNoether
I can just say that at least oncein the past year, I *chose* not to make a CCS funding request specifically to avoid this conversation
-
jwinterm
right, I think vetting should be at a minimum => (1) assessing the technical feasibility, (2) assessing the ability of the proposer to deliver technically, and (3) clear milestones and deliverables
-
rehrar
suraeNoether: and that's the clincher.
-
suraeNoether
and now i'm participating in it on someone else's behalf :P
-
rehrar
We can look at closed proposals.
-
jwinterm
but I'm not sure above and beyond that if there should be a committee or a luigi selecting worthy and unworthy proposals
-
rehrar
But we can never see the unopened ones.
-
suraeNoether
i don't know how to fix this problem, for the record
-
suraeNoether
i agree with ErCiccione[m] that there's a noise to signal issue
-
rehrar
So selsta when you say you want to see the rejected ones, this is not the best way to go about it. Because we don't see the ones that were never opened on account of the way we do things.
-
suraeNoether
i can just share what i've experienced. *shrug* besides, atomic swaps are cool.
-
ErCiccione[m]
jwinterm: If that would be the case we also need to change the funds are managed. So i would implement kayabaNerve's proposal and i would make a plan for the funds if the proposal is not fulfilled
-
rehrar
ErCiccione[m]: then someone make this system.
-
jwinterm
yea, I agree dumping into general fund is not ideal
-
jwinterm
refundable system would be nice
-
rehrar
And put it as an alternative to the CCS.
-
jwinterm
or CCS to upgrade CCS
-
jwinterm
CCSs all the way down
-
rehrar
jwinterm: would never get past the gatekeepers
-
jwinterm
:P
-
rehrar
As of now, core has chosen not to put effort into keeping tabs on donations for refunding.
-
rehrar
If someone would like to make such a system, then they can do so. If it outperforms the CCS, then awesome!
-
ErCiccione[m]
Well, we are here to discuss a change on how the CCS works no?
-
jwinterm
I'm mostly here cause I'm waiting for my wife to get home so we can go to the pool
-
selsta
rehrar: well what's even the point of discussing CCS requests then, if my comments get labeled as gatekeeping and stifling innovation what am I even doing here
-
suraeNoether
DLSAG-style return addresses can be used to design a rough dominant assurance method, but 1) incompatible key images and 2) it'll be prone to users misconstructing transactions and sending with the wrong refund height :(
-
ErCiccione[m]
Can a refund system be created without return addresses? i mean, people can already proof they sent a transaction. Would be more hacky i guess, but could work for our usecase
-
kayabaNerve
How are spend proofs hacky?
-
ErCiccione[m]
and beside, we could create a system where failed proposals get redistributed to other opened ccs proposals, but that wouldn't solve the "noise" problem
-
rehrar
selsta: discussing CCS requests has often caused many good things, like asking good questions and requesting more information to be put in the proposal, so people can know whether or not they want to put their money on it, or whether or not it really is technologically feasible
-
TheCharlatan
suraeNoether surely the transaction construction issues can be UX'ed away.
-
ErCiccione[m]
kayabaNerve: it wouldn't be an immediate/simple system as having return addresses
-
rehrar
there are a few very obviously bad proposals that nobody wants. Xeagu's come to mind. But in ones where there is contention should the default be not merging?
-
rehrar
This is the core of the problem. What should the default be on contention. Inaction or action?
-
rehrar
for the CCS specifically
-
rehrar
Xeagu's was non-controversial. Literally nobody wanted it.
-
rehrar
There are others that see a split of community sentiment. Loose consensus is not easily achieved.
-
kayabaNerve
True, but not hacky :P
-
rehrar
In such a case, should the default be to merge and let the community decide, or to not merge?
-
kayabaNerve
rehrar: RRS? RehRar System?
-
kayabaNerve
:P
-
kayabaNerve
What was Xeagu's?
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: But why now should be "black or white" when until now the "case by case" system worked quite well? Again, not against making changes, i just think the discussion shouldn't be "more loose or more strict", but "how to improve the system as a whole"?
-
ErCiccione[m]
that because i don't think we are being too strict or too loose, but i do think the system needs improvements
-
ErCiccione[m]
Refunds and a system for failed proposal would be a great start and would allow us to make deeper changes and be more permissive if people want that
-
asy
kayabaNerve: church of monero related nonsense
-
ErCiccione[m]
imo jwinterm proposal for a minimal vetting would work well if ^ would be implemented
-
zkao
when suraeNoether says he did not submit a proposal not to have this discussion, it suggests that maybe the system is working for some people but not to others
-
ErCiccione[m]
but cannot be simply "merge all" "merge nothing", that's simplicistic and doesn't really solve any problem, jsut create more
-
ErCiccione[m]
zkao[m]: yeah, that's why agree some changes would be beneficial
-
rehrar
ok, here's an idea
-
ErCiccione[m]
To clarify: "I think vetting should be at a minimum => (1) assessing the technical feasibility, (2) assessing the ability of the proposer to deliver technically, and (3) clear milestones and deliverables" + refunds + recollocation of failed proposals for new proposals or something else sounds like a good equilibrium to me
-
ErCiccione[m]
luigi1111 any opinion about that?
-
rehrar
what if, rather than going into the GF any 'excess funds' or other funds went to a separate CCS fund
-
rehrar
who goal is simply to pay into CCS's
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: That's part of what i'm proposing :)
-
luigi1111w
ErCiccione[m] that sounds reasonable
-
luigi1111w
not sold on refunds as an idea though
-
rehrar
refunds would take a massive amount of work
-
h4sh3d[m]
luigi1111w: Technically or “philosophically”?
-
ErCiccione[m]
luigi1111w: What's your concern? I do think is a good idea in theory, but i also see the amount of work and possible bad UX
-
luigi1111w
mostly technically
-
luigi1111w
as a concept it's mostly positive as far as pushing people to donate to something they want but are concerned it might not be funded
-
rehrar
keeping track of 'spoken for' funds and 'non-spoken for' funds would be blech. Meaning some people will just donate and not claim it's theirs. This money would go to the CCS Fund.
-
ErCiccione[m]
I do see refunds as an important part of that system tho, but at least we are moving forward :D
-
rehrar
spoken for funds are people who make their donations known (and prove obviously), and they will get a prorated refund if things don't work out
-
ErCiccione[m]
as a concept it's mostly positive as far as pushing people to donate to something they want but are concerned it might not be funded -> exactlu why i see it as an important part of that "system"
-
rehrar
prorated meaning if one of two 50% milestones has already been paid out, then they get 50% of their donation.
-
rehrar
who would do this accounting work?
-
rehrar
or are we thinking of building a system where people can prove their transactions and it gets automatically added to a private spreadsheet or something?
-
h4sh3d[m]
Prorata on collected but unreleased funds
-
rehrar
cuz I'll be blunt, if you're expecting core to do it, let me be the first to say that isn't going to happen :P
-
dEBRUYNE
Tech people think this proposal of atomic swaps is well constructed and structured well with clear deliverables. <= After it went through a lengthy vetting process basically
-
ErCiccione[m]
I don't think doing it manually would be feasible without a dedicated effort, no. Maybe can be automated
-
dEBRUYNE
To be clear, I don't think it should be too extensive either, but I don't think a laissez-faire approach is the right way either
-
rehrar
dEBRUYNE: right. So now that that lengthy vetting process is done, it can be merged now that it meets all of those requirements. Except we have more things that people want that have nothing to do with its structure, content, or deliverables, but rather personal ideas on how the community should spend their money.
-
rehrar
dEBRUYNE: and I haven't argued for a super lax approach to vetting. I'm not saying no vetting should be done.
-
rehrar
But contentious proposals should err towards merge rather than not merge imo.
-
rehrar
Will repeat once again, but proposals like xeagu's were not contentious. Everyone agreed it was bad. There was no contention.
-
ErCiccione[m]
rehrar: I don't think the system we are talking about should be used for this proposal though, the old approach "case by case" should be used until we don't figure out a "new" system
-
dEBRUYNE
but rather personal ideas on how the community should spend their money. <= Well, not necessarily
-
rehrar
I disagree with you as to the current state of the system
-
dEBRUYNE
My worry was more that it is a huge ask and there is a possibility that it will ultimately be utilized very little
-
dEBRUYNE
Hence, my suggestion to seek some kind of partner (e.g. an existing DEX) in addition to the proposal
-
rehrar
like multisig?
-
dEBRUYNE
The hardware wallet basically has/had the same problem
-
dEBRUYNE
There was no concrete plan for getting actual devices to people
-
rehrar
getting actual devices to people was never part of that proposal, but I know most people didn't see it that way
-
dEBRUYNE
It was kind of implied if I recall correctly, but that is another matter to discuss I suppose
-
rehrar
the deliverable of the first proposal was a spec
-
rehrar
the deliverable of the second proposal was a casing for it
-
rehrar
I know that people think that completed spec + completed casing = finished proudct
-
rehrar
I can see that chain of thought. But that's not the case. Most people are just ignorant of how hardware works, especially open hardware
-
ErCiccione[m]
dEBRUYNE: It was, you are right. There were even talks about a price
-
dEBRUYNE
We're digressing here
-
dEBRUYNE
If this proposal gets successfully funded, there will essentially be an open source library for atomic swaps
-
rehrar
ErCiccione[m]: price of production and manufacturing and speculating on a subsequent retail price doesn't.....
-
rehrar
dEBRUYNE: ok
-
dEBRUYNE
But your average Monero user will have little benefit of it if there is no concrete implementation
-
zkao
dEBRUYNE: we dont want to strike deals directly with businesses we can’t understand enough about, nor their interests, we want to avoid getting DEXs directly involved, but the community is encouraged to ask them to donate to the CCS. that way we can retain our independency and integrity and try to build the right thing. we’d be happy to receive/provide technical contributions from/to them in the form of open-source
-
zkao
collaboration, but would not like to have a direct influence from them
-
rehrar
dEBRUYNE: yes, but businesses are users also, and arguably as the businesses and ecosystem grows, the usecases of Monero grow
-
rehrar
leading to more people checking it out.
-
dEBRUYNE
Business still will probably need assistance with actually integrating the library
-
dEBRUYNE
hence my suggestion to partner
-
rehrar
as much as nobody here likes to say it, cleaning bitcoin is a usecase for Monero. It provides some semblance of liquidity as well. Do I think it's a good idea? No. And I think Bitcoin is largely useless. But that is currently one of Monero's usecases.
-
dEBRUYNE
They typically also have more money available
-
rehrar
look, I have no idea how much this will be used
-
rehrar
but neither does anyone else
-
dEBRUYNE
zkao: That seems like a bit of an inefficient process, to be honest
-
dEBRUYNE
I don't think integrity will be affected that much by business contributing to the CCS (if you asked directly)
-
rehrar
and we can't just say 'well it might not be used much so no', because we will be wrong sometimes. Maybe even many times. Which will lead to lost opportunities
-
dEBRUYNE
Fact of the matter is that unless there is a straight forward implementation, it will see little usage
-
dEBRUYNE
Ease of use basically equals amount of usage
-
zkao
dEBRUYNE: i would love them to donate to CCS, as monero users, what i dont want is to strike direct deals with them, and get money outside the CCS
-
dEBRUYNE
rehrar: Also, please don't bring illicit use cases into this discussion. I do not want to be affiliated with that in any way
-
rehrar
cleaning bitcoin doesn't have to be illicit. If I receive Bitcoin I have no idea where it's been, and I don't want to be associated with its past.
-
dEBRUYNE
Would it be possible to strike a deal and let them donate through the CCS?
-
rehrar
I'm protecting my good reputation by cleaning my Bitcoin so nobody can even attempt to associate me with something unsavory that I had nothing to do with.
-
zkao
we're 5 people, cant answer for my colaborators, dEBRUYNE
-
dEBRUYNE
OK
-
dEBRUYNE
To be clear, don't see it as a stance against the proposal
-
dEBRUYNE
It is more of a worry of the return of 'investment'
-
zkao
dEBRUYNE: do u have any specific project in mind?
-
dEBRUYNE
zkao: Not necessarily, but kayabaNerve listed plenty of DEXes
-
dEBRUYNE
I merely would like to see some integration such that users can easily enjoy the benefits of XMR <-> BTC atomic swaps
-
zkao
yes, he listed a bunch and all of them are scammy looking
-
zkao
and they call atomic swaps what is not an atomic swap
-
kayabaNerve
Nano Center may be interested, if we pledge to add Nano support. ASMR already has it and I am willing to take up that burden personally.
-
kayabaNerve
An ADA developer was interested in the protocol. Said I'd be happy to talk it over/help out :)
-
kayabaNerve
"yeah all this code will need to be ported to haskell" lol
-
kayabaNerve
I don't mind wanting to use a specific language but I thought that was humorous. Sounds like they're dead set enough to not bother
-
kayabaNerve
BlockDX would likely use the code, with a C++ FFI promise, same as DCR DEX. The former may not have the funding (no idea), the latter has a DAO.
-
kayabaNerve
And then AtomicDEX definitely has the funding, and they do have atomic swaps; they just also have subatomic to comply with coins which didn't support AS until this protocol
-
kayabaNerve
I personally like BlockDX
-
kayabaNerve
I personally don't like AtomicDEX
-
kayabaNerve
I personally don't mind DCR DEX but have no hopes for it
-
kayabaNerve
And then yeah, no hopes/faith/like for Luxgate. My friend is the project lead so I keep up to date on it :P
-
kayabaNerve
*And then ADEX may not want to contribute anything meaningful.
-
kayabaNerve
But if we're willing to pledge a quality C++ API, where we ourselves handle type conversions so they don't have to do anything special (besides have rustc to produce an object file), and then I personally pledge to handle Nano... then yeah, we have a shot at funding from external projects.
-
kayabaNerve
But we'd need the CCS proposal to be live first so we can actually point them towards it
-
kayabaNerve
I've also never done FFI work with Rust so I can't really comment on that scope. Just saying if we pledged to do it... not saying we are pledging to do so.
-
zkao
kayabaNerve: can u reach out to them when the CCS proposal is live?
-
kayabaNerve
I can reach out ADEX, BlockDX, Nano, and DCR. First one is a maybe due to the size of their funding, second is a maybe due how much they'd appreciate it, third is a risky maybe due to the non-Nano origins, DCR is 95% no
-
kayabaNerve
But at least giving them the heads up for a good relationship would be good :)
-
kayabaNerve
And then Luxgate definitely doesn't have the funding, infrastructure, readiness, existing quality...
-
kayabaNerve
I'm just mentioning DEX tech in general when I bring them up
-
zkao
its hard for dex to make money, its a decentralized network
-
kayabaNerve
Bisq may also support it as a DEX? But they don't use AS and this would help their competitors. That said, we can at least float it to their community members
-
kayabaNerve
BlockDX has a native token
-
kayabaNerve
Every trade of any pair charges some of it I believe to a DAO
-
kayabaNerve
And then DCR has a DEX
-
kayabaNerve
No idea ADEX's model
-
kayabaNerve
*And the BlockDX team has bags
-
zkao
bisq looks like hard to integrate to new tech, they dont even have segwit activated, and its been 3 years now
-
ErCiccione[m]
Yeah and that's an understatement :P
-
ErCiccione[m]
btw i'm sure they wouldn't help with funding this
-
ErCiccione[m]
they have their own financial problems at the moment and only reenctly they started to care a bit more about xmr users
-
zkao
erciccione_[m]: is that community messed up?
-
zkao
oh, i see
-
ErCiccione[m]
I'm biased because i've been contributing to Bisq for some time, until i left screaming because i disagreed about a lot of things. They have a flawed monetary policy and they recently got hacked, so they have been tight about allocating funds even for Bisq development.
-
ErCiccione[m]
I would say a DAO proposal could be opened asking to donate to the atomic swap project, but i'm quite sure it would be rejected
-
ErCiccione[m]
With "i left screaming" you have to picture me running away screaming because went crazy, not screaming at them :P
-
kayabaNerve
Alrighty. Just wanted to comment about them
-
kayabaNerve
Eh. Failed proposals are bad rep, especially when we're discussing reaching out to other communities at quantity. We don't want to appear like beggar.
-
kayabaNerve
*beggars.
-
zkao
what do u mean, we dress like beggars, behave like beggars, why cant we appear like beggars?
-
lederstrumpf
:D