16:00:39 <rehrar> Community meeting in an hour.
16:56:58 <rehrar> community meeting in a few minutes
17:00:46 <rehrar> hi
17:00:47 <rehrar> meeting time
17:00:51 <rehrar> https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/511
17:01:20 <rehrar> 1. Greetings
17:01:27 <rehrar> anybody here today?
17:01:48 * xmrscott[m] raises hand
17:01:58 <ErCiccione[m]> Hi. FYI I have latency problems
17:02:07 <lederstrumpf> hi
17:02:17 <h4sh3d[m]> Hi
17:03:43 <rehrar> good of you all to join
17:03:56 <ajs-mob> hi
17:04:01 <rehrar> we'll start, but people can trickle in
17:04:19 <rehrar> Let's start with workgroup stuff actually, as I understand we'll have quite large CCS discussions today
17:04:27 <rehrar> So, Workgroups!
17:04:30 <lederstrumpf> @rehrar - your messages are all arriving in pairs. no biggie, just fyi.
17:04:44 <rehrar> must be a Matrix thing, bro.
17:04:56 <hyc> irc looks fine
17:04:58 <rehrar> LOL, literally everyone joining the meeting today is joining via Matrix
17:05:04 <rehrar> ye, hyc is and IRC purist.
17:05:07 <rehrar> high fives bro
17:05:17 <lederstrumpf> lol, it does seem to be a matrix issue
17:05:17 <hyc> lol
17:05:32 <rehrar> ok, let's get us some updates, yeah?
17:05:36 <rehrar> a. Daemon/CLI/GUI workgroup
17:05:51 <rehrar> xiphon, selsta?
17:05:58 <selsta> hi
17:06:13 <selsta> we put out a CLI point release
17:06:19 <ErCiccione[m]> Yeah it's a matrix thing. There are some problems with the bridge apparently
17:06:34 <selsta> including some bugfixes, and we will release the GUI ~2 weeks before HF
17:06:49 <xmrscott[m]> (But only some people on IRC, not all)
17:07:40 <ErCiccione[m]> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ yeah
17:07:41 <rehrar> selsta: remind me of HF date?
17:07:46 <selsta> 17.10
17:07:53 <selsta> approximately
17:07:59 <rehrar> neato
17:08:06 <rehrar> drawing close to CLSAG
17:09:05 <rehrar>  b. Localization workgroup
17:10:23 <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
17:11:02 <rehrar> cool
17:11:04 <rehrar> and  c. Website workgroup?
17:12:15 <ErCiccione[m]> Progressing. Beside the usual stuff i'm working on adding the parts who were not integrated with the i18n plugin
17:12:30 <ErCiccione[m]> i already PRd the navigation menu, will work on the footers in the next days
17:12:55 <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
17:12:55 <rehrar> you get a chance to sneak a peak a Hugo or nah?
17:14:27 <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
17:14:45 <sarang> FYI giving a talk and unable to stay for this meeting to give an update
17:14:59 <rehrar> sarang: can we get you on now or is it too late?
17:15:19 <rehrar> if it's too late, then have a nice talk.
17:15:54 <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
17:16:00 <rehrar> aight
17:16:13 <rehrar> and the redesign idea without the generator change?
17:16:14 <rehrar> ;)
17:17:44 <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
17:18:23 <ErCiccione[m]> That doesn't mean that the design doesn't need to be improved tho
17:18:38 <ErCiccione[m]> So, if somebody have ideas/ suggestions, please share them
17:18:43 <rehrar> aight, and you still need to get with me about the busy work
17:19:02 <rehrar> willing to get it done with you
17:19:06 <rehrar> but for the sake of time, let's move on
17:19:07 <rehrar>  d. Outreach workgroup
17:19:15 <rehrar> lh1008[m] xmrhaelan, either of you guys here?
17:20:06 <rehrar> guess not, and if they come in they can give the report later
17:20:12 <rehrar> we'll skip MRL cuz sarang is busy
17:20:22 <rehrar> 3. CCS Updates!
17:20:57 <rehrar> h4sh3d[m]: you can start
17:21:04 <rehrar> you wanted to make a case for your proposal or something?
17:21:10 <rehrar> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/168
17:21:22 <h4sh3d2> yes
17:21:34 <h4sh3d[m]> ^ it's me
17:22:11 <h4sh3d2> we want to discuss about our CCS, indentify what the next steps are
17:22:35 <lederstrumpf> <h4sh3d[m] "hi - we would like to discuss ou"> we asked for feedback on Thursday whether anything is still blocking a merge.
17:22:46 <h4sh3d2> maybe lederstrumpf
17:22:53 <h4sh3d2> yep, go ahead
17:24:33 <lederstrumpf> there were good discussions with vtnerd on the MR comment section
17:25:01 <lederstrumpf> in a sense, a preliminary review of the swap architecture by vtnerd
17:25:13 <h4sh3d2> we also gathered some first feedback and we updated it
17:25:17 <lederstrumpf> that discussion has been resolved since almost two weeks
17:25:25 <lederstrumpf> <h4sh3d2 "we also gathered some first feed"> that too
17:25:47 <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?
17:26:32 <ErCiccione[m]> There were also thoughts about auditing the implementation before starting to fund this proposal.
17:27:00 <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.
17:27:21 <lederstrumpf> <ErCiccione[m] "I see that some suggestions from"> yes, I remember that particular suggestion from you
17:27:39 <rehrar> but there is a similar risk in a huge project with major price movements
17:28:01 <rehrar> splitting it up lessens that risk somewhat
17:28:08 <zkao> erciccione_[m]:  audit the implementation before the implementation is done?
17:28:08 <ErCiccione[m]> lederstrumpf: It wasn't just me, many members of the community agreed :)
17:28:18 <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?
17:28:40 <zkao> rehrar: we will pay in xmr
17:28:50 <zkao> 1 xmr = 1xmr always
17:28:52 <zkao> its fungible
17:29:09 <rehrar> true, but people might say "yeah, I need to leave this project because I have bills to pay"
17:29:20 <rehrar> and then 1xmr=1xmr isn't worth jack :D
17:29:36 <rehrar> but aight, if you're confident in your team's staying power, then that answers that for me
17:29:42 <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
17:29:54 <ErCiccione[m]> zkao[m]: Sorry, i mispoke. I meant auditing your proposal and the math behind it, before a team start to imlement it
17:30:23 <dEBRUYNE> I'd personally like to see some kind of partnering with a DEX before the community funds this
17:30:40 <rehrar> one thing to note, the case for splitting up the proposal has generally revolved around anonimal (kovri) and michael (hardware)
17:30:41 <dEBRUYNE> I am a bit worried that otherwise we may have an expensive project that sees little use (though valuable)
17:30:46 <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
17:30:59 <rehrar> both anonimal and michael are individuals rather than teams, and the dynamics are very different
17:31:18 <dEBRUYNE> I am also of the opinion that it would be more prudent to split it up in a few proposals
17:31:24 <dEBRUYNE> Especially given that 280k is quite a large sum
17:31:26 <Inge-> +1 splitting it up
17:31:34 <h4sh3d2> we believe that if we ask for funding for, for example, writing specs, there will be little interest in people to fund it
17:31:35 <ErCiccione[m]> yeah. I would be ok with 2 proposals
17:32:02 <rehrar> splitting in half rather than three seems like a decent compromise then?
17:32:18 <Inge-> That pretty much halves the risk to the community
17:32:22 <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.
17:32:24 <lederstrumpf> no, even splitting in half means there's only half a PoC
17:32:31 <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
17:32:43 <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
17:32:55 <rehrar> lederstrumpf: this happened already with kovri, and we funded it all the way anyways
17:33:04 <rehrar> *despite us funding it all the way anyways
17:33:05 <selsta> Does anyone know how much atomic swaps are used in other cryptos? Do decentralized exchanges use them?
17:33:09 <jwinterm> rehrar: in theory with milestones written into a full proposal that is almost the same
17:33:21 <jwinterm> I guess except people don't get their money back it just goes into general fund
17:33:21 <rehrar> jwinterm: this I do agree with, and is something I think isn't talked about
17:33:22 <ErCiccione[m]> You guys have to consider that the monero community cannot take all the risks
17:33:28 <dEBRUYNE> selsta: UNISWAP is quite popular I'd say
17:33:51 <rehrar> actually, why are the milestones not part of these discussions, eh?
17:34:01 <ErCiccione[m]> I don't agree with that. The funds would be already collected. Which is the point in discussion
17:34:10 <lederstrumpf> @rehrar: we've got 16 milestones in total. the community has 16 opportunities to review
17:34:33 <jwinterm> uniswap is not exactly the same as it is only for eth and its own tokens, not for actual different base currency swaps
17:34:40 <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
17:34:45 <lederstrumpf> at any of these 16 milestones, if the community is not happy, payment is not unlocked
17:34:49 <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?
17:35:31 <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
17:35:53 <h4sh3d2> Because MRL works on different project that requires continuous funding, and it was chosed to be every quarter
17:36:08 <rehrar> h4sh3d2, so you guys would not consider splitting it in half? it's an all or nothing deal?
17:36:11 <h4sh3d2> I see this differently than a defined project
17:36:12 <rehrar> like, let's just get the cards on the table
17:36:22 <sarang> FYI am available for the next 20 minutes before I participate in an MCC panel
17:36:24 <rehrar> rather than beat around the bush
17:36:27 <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
17:36:32 <rehrar> sarang: feel free to hop in on this discussion
17:36:53 <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
17:36:53 <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
17:36:57 <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 :)
17:37:13 <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
17:37:18 <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
17:37:18 <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
17:37:39 <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
17:38:07 <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?
17:38:54 <lederstrumpf> rehrar: yes, coordination cost for 5 developers will be too high if we split
17:38:59 <rehrar> ok
17:39:18 <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.
17:39:23 <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.
17:40:00 <rehrar> (as is meaning in terms of funding, not necessarily content which can still be tweaked)
17:40:04 <lederstrumpf> we plan to leave the ccs open for 3 months anyway
17:40:30 <sarang> This may have been discussed anyway, but there was a suggestion to obtain more formal review/auditing prior to funding an implementation
17:40:33 <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
17:40:44 <sarang> (sorry, am splitting my attention here and the MCC event)
17:40:57 <ErCiccione[m]> sarang: Yeah i mentioned that early. Would be good to have the team's opinion on that
17:41:08 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> If sarang is taking some time out, do the team working on atomic swaps become MRL?
17:41:15 <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?
17:41:26 <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
17:41:35 <sarang> Yeah, to be clear, I am not requesting funding for the next quarter
17:41:36 <TheCharlatan> cankerwort we are all mrl :)
17:41:50 <sarang> MRL isn't some big formal thing
17:41:53 <sarang> There are many contributors!
17:41:58 <rehrar> MRL is in all of our hearts
17:42:00 <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?
17:42:00 <lederstrumpf> > ErCiccione: Trust should go both ways
17:42:00 <lederstrumpf> Funds for every milestone are locked until we deliver - there's no trust required that we'll "run away with the money"
17:42:13 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> I think if the funding window of 3 months is acceptable, then the big headline number is less of an issue
17:42:33 <rehrar> jwinterm: yes, this has been brought up before. People have different expectations as to how the CCS works.
17:42:41 <xmrscott[m]> jwinterm: Agreed
17:42:54 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> And milestone releases get discusses at these meeetings right?
17:42:59 <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.
17:43:03 <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
17:43:16 <ErCiccione[m]> *for many reasons
17:43:18 <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'
17:43:28 <rehrar> so they can weigh all of that and make an informed decision of whether or not to donate
17:43:32 <lederstrumpf> @cankerwort: yes, they get discussed here or in similar channels that we list in the proposal
17:43:58 <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
17:44:20 <nioc> :)
17:44:26 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Is Rehrar deciding if milestones get met a conflict of interest?
17:44:32 <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.
17:44:32 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Idk who usually decides
17:44:46 <rehrar> cankerwort luigi1111 does
17:44:55 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: I think that's fair
17:45:05 <jwinterm> who does vote? is it a secret ballot by core team?
17:45:12 <jwinterm> sorry for stupid logistics questions
17:45:31 <rehrar> vote on what whether a milestone is finished?
17:45:43 <sarang> It is certainly true that this proposal is exceptionally clear and well planned out, if that was a concern
17:45:44 <jwinterm> yes, but I was actually asking about moving ccs to funding
17:45:47 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Maybe milestone releases should be actively discussed in these meetings as much as CCS proposals are
17:45:55 <rehrar> non-contentious milestone work is done solely by luigi1111. It's been delegated to him. Contentious stuff is usually discussed by core.
17:45:59 <rehrar> *all of core
17:46:07 <jwinterm> and for moving something to funding?
17:46:31 <rehrar> luigi1111: has done a good job of listening to the community. Occasionally we'll talk with core about the most contentious ones.
17:46:49 <jwinterm> so it's just "loose consensus"
17:46:54 <rehrar> But unless something is very negative (i.e. xeagu proposals) or lack of interest it's not shut down
17:47:00 <selsta> jwinterm: luigi decides
17:47:01 <rehrar> it's why we have several still open ideas form a while ago
17:47:02 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> The team did say they were OK with the funding sitting open for 3 months? I think that lessens concerns
17:47:06 <rehrar> yes
17:47:21 <jwinterm> .luigi
17:47:21 <monerobux> 🍄 luigi is doing. mario is not doing luigi is doing 🍄
17:47:24 <jwinterm> thanks :)
17:47:30 <sarang> Can the team speak a bit about the idea of auditing/reviewing in parallel to development?
17:47:33 <rehrar> selsta: not 100% true. In the case of super contentious ones, it's discussed with core
17:47:43 <rehrar> ok. sarang you have the floor.
17:47:53 <rehrar> er, the team, I guess, since he passed it off to them
17:47:58 <sarang> Heh, I'll have to jump away shortly to do a panel...
17:48:08 <h4sh3d2> sarang: what do you mean exactly?
17:48:15 <h4sh3d2> ah
17:48:21 <sarang> Well, suppose a major issue arises
17:48:23 <sarang> in the audit
17:48:38 <sarang> and it's no longer deemed "safe" for some definition of "safe"
17:48:48 <hyc> y'know, in my day, people just fucking wrote code. that's what open source projects are about. not about funding.
17:49:08 <sarang> People need to pay bills, eat, etc.
17:49:18 <hyc> if you can't afford to spend the time to write it, then don't do it. period.
17:49:40 <hyc> this isn't a commercial enterprise. you shuldn't expect a salary.
17:49:55 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> But they are donations
17:50:01 <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
17:50:26 <sarang> hyc: I have received regular full-time funding
17:50:27 <hyc> asking for donations is reasonable. asking donations and saying "here is the price tag" is not asking donations.
17:51:09 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Let's say the funding Ccs was open for 3 months and only received 50% of the asking price
17:51:21 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Do the devs do half the plan?
17:51:21 <hyc> MRL required long-term funding because research is inherently open-ended
17:51:30 <ErCiccione[m]> donations is probably the wrong term here. "community funds" would probably be more appropriate
17:51:33 <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
17:51:40 <sarang> ok thanks h4sh3d2
17:52:00 <rehrar> cankerwort I think they meant leave the ideas proposal up for three months before moving on if it hasn't been merged
17:52:18 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Oh thats different
17:52:20 <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."
17:52:33 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Fantastic
17:52:35 <rehrar> oh, I guess I was wrong. Sorry.
17:52:41 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> So what is the worry?
17:53:16 <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
17:53:21 <rehrar> we will use the same arguments and say the same things
17:53:52 <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 ;)
17:53:52 <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
17:54:34 <ErCiccione[m]> So we are not considering funding an audit?
17:54:45 <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
17:55:09 <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)?
17:55:39 <sarang> zkao: nice!
17:55:54 <jwinterm> personally I think the latter makes sense for the time being rehrar
17:56:03 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: Why would we change the structure of the CCS now?
17:56:07 <lederstrumpf> @ErCiccione: funding an audit is simply a parallel discussion
17:56:08 <jwinterm> it's not like there's a glut of 100 proposals awaiting move to funding right?
17:56:13 <selsta> yea we change the CCS now?
17:56:19 <rehrar> ErCiccione[m]: the CCS has always been nebulous with little defining. There is no restructuring.
17:56:47 <selsta> maybe I’m not understanding what you are suggesting
17:56:49 <rehrar> gatekeepers were never hard coded in either btw
17:56:56 <ErCiccione[m]> We have always been quite clear about vetting proposals and not just letting everything go to funding required
17:57:03 <hyc> it's not simply "accept any proposal and let the community decide if they want to fund it" - we are vetting proposals first
17:57:15 <ErCiccione[m]> yeah, why should we change that now?
17:57:18 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Basic vetting
17:57:32 <ErCiccione[m]> what would even be the point of discussing proposals then?
17:57:40 <ErCiccione[m]> doesn't make any sense
17:57:45 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> And the proposal has a fall back for being underfunded or not delivering (in the form of milestones)
17:58:00 <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'?
17:58:07 <jwinterm> but if there is no clear definition of "vetting"...
17:58:11 <rehrar> ^
17:58:31 <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?"
17:59:06 <ErCiccione[m]> So where the funds would go? General fund? i don't agree with that, and you rehrar clearly biased proposing this.
17:59:29 <rehrar> ...ugh
17:59:35 <jwinterm> if vetting means: (1) assessing that the proposer is technically capable, and (2) there are clearly defined milestones
17:59:39 <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
17:59:42 <h4sh3d2> or (2) allocate the funds for active Monero Research Lab contributors.
17:59:43 <jwinterm> then I don't see why this wouldn't move to funding required
17:59:55 <h4sh3d2> that was another possibility we wrote in the CCS
18:00:26 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> The issue would be that sarang won't have a funding request up to be funded if this falla through
18:00:28 <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?
18:00:32 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: It's not about you. But you have to agree that you obviously have interest in making a proposal like that
18:01:18 <rehrar> goodness. I guess all the good will I've built is gone.
18:01:27 <rehrar> but whatever, I won't make this about me. a conversation for another time.
18:01:48 <rehrar> Any other remarks on this proposal?
18:01:55 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: Why is that a matter of goodwill? Why does it always have to be a matter of trust?
18:01:58 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> I say open it for funding
18:02:01 <rehrar> I'd rather not go in circles all day, and we have more to do.
18:02:56 <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.
18:03:04 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> The formal paper sound like a good idea
18:03:29 <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.
18:03:43 <rehrar> But don't pull 'why would we change now?' You don't understand. It's already changed since the beginning.
18:04:13 <rehrar> The level of vetting is different today than it was two years ago. Or four. I can provide plenty of evidence for this.
18:04:33 <rehrar> It has reached a threshold that I personally think is excessive.
18:04:36 <hyc> seems like the nature of projets has changed too
18:05:01 <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.
18:05:18 <rehrar> Such is my view on the topic. /end
18:05:23 <h4sh3d2> hyc: can you elaborate on that?
18:05:30 <hyc> the value of the network has increased, which means the cost of mistakes has increased.
18:05:38 <jwinterm> so now we just wait and see if luigi1111 does thumbs up or thumbs down?
18:05:38 <selsta> rehrar: what were the last declined projects?
18:05:49 <selsta> rejected*
18:06:12 <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.
18:06:22 <rehrar> selsta: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/127
18:06:46 <rehrar> selsta: https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/91
18:06:56 <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.
18:06:57 <jwinterm> also endo
18:06:58 <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
18:07:07 <rehrar> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/120
18:07:13 <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.
18:07:16 <rehrar> and xeagu
18:08:07 <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
18:08:15 <hyc> you can't pretend that things aren't different now than 4 years ago. so naturally the degree of scrutiny is changed.
18:08:18 <rehrar> many of these have been made known to me in various forms
18:09:03 <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.
18:09:19 <selsta> rehrar: I don’t see these rejected proposals you are talking about.
18:09:29 <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
18:09:32 <hyc> the alternative is, we do no discussion at all, and just collate proposals.
18:09:41 <hyc> then the CCS is nothing more than a central clearinghouse
18:09:57 <rehrar> ErCiccione[m]: I literally just said I'll see if I can't get the big boys to speak publicly on this.
18:10:13 <ErCiccione[m]> and most of the people agreed vetting weas necessary, i haven't seen anybody complain about that publicly
18:11:04 <selsta> I don’t see any "innovative" project that has been rejected.
18:11:14 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Was there anymore talk about partial funding of this project by Nano people? Do I remember reading that somewhere?
18:11:26 <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
18:11:58 <ErCiccione[m]> jwinterm: Agree with that. Disagree with "vetting it's nebolous, let's just not do it"
18:12:03 <selsta> The community does not have unlimited funds, some basic vetting is in the interest of the project.
18:12:05 <hyc> jwinterm: nebulous is probably what it needs to be. handled on a case by case basis.
18:12:30 <hyc> nor does the community at large have the technical sophistication to judge all of the proposals
18:12:31 <rehrar> hyc: on this I agree. Keeping it nebulous is in our best interests.
18:12:43 <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
18:12:45 <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
18:13:10 <jwinterm> s/even considered for/moved to
18:13:11 <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
18:13:28 <selsta> I doubt that luigi will do that :P
18:13:57 <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
18:14:02 <hyc> btw, the term "funding required" has never sat well with me. to be pedantic, it should be "funding desired"
18:14:09 <jwinterm> open for funding
18:14:11 <jwinterm> I agree
18:14:16 <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.
18:14:17 <jwinterm> required is not good word
18:14:49 <rehrar> if we're being honest about what usually happens :D
18:14:50 <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?
18:15:12 <hyc> ^^
18:15:34 <hyc> if this sort of thing is all it takes to discourage you, then writing open source is not for you.
18:15:49 <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
18:16:03 <selsta> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/120
18:16:15 <selsta> this has been rejected, the whole project’s github is dead for months
18:16:25 <selsta> would that have been a good use of funds?
18:16:28 <jwinterm> with that being said, actual academic and government funding of proposals is extremely nebulous
18:16:35 <jwinterm> but there's a lot more competition there
18:16:35 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: That means that people are not interested in the proposal though. So makes sense that it's closed
18:16:45 <jwinterm> and not sure we want to strive to be like the government
18:16:58 <rehrar> ok, we need to move on.
18:17:06 <rehrar> I will bring everything here to core and discuss.
18:17:18 <hyc> this model is all wrong. it's putting a commercial business model on a community volunteer environment.
18:17:59 <rehrar> alexanarcho[m]: you here?
18:18:08 <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.
18:18:21 <rehrar> you also wanted to discuss your proposal? https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/174
18:18:26 <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
18:18:33 <hyc> your motivation to complete it doesn't depend on the existence of funding.
18:18:37 <jwinterm> what that was called, sailfish or whatever
18:19:23 <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.
18:19:23 <hyc> the record thing? I had reservations about that too, but ok.
18:19:30 <h4sh3d2> hyc: I agree in some extent, but why CCS then. You just need a reward system
18:19:36 <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
18:20:01 <zkao> hyc: we started this project almost 4 years ago, how much longer do we have to wait to get funding?
18:20:22 <ErCiccione[m]> Since then i don't believe anything of that kind was approved
18:20:30 <zkao> now that we know how to make it a reality, we want ot make it a reality
18:20:51 <hyc> nobody is stopping you zkao
18:21:24 <zkao> yes, that is why the protocol is complete now, because nobody stopped us
18:21:47 <rehrar> ok, if alexanarcho isn't here, do we have any general comments on this tipxmr.live?
18:21:54 <rehrar> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/174
18:22:04 <rehrar> meeting is running very long. :P
18:22:13 <rehrar> Discussion on these matters can, of course, continue after it's adjourned.
18:22:50 <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.
18:23:14 <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.
18:23:18 <selsta> proposals*
18:23:27 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Are they planning monetise the tipper?
18:24:34 <lederstrumpf> @cankerwort: they are planning to monetise their hosting of the tipper
18:24:59 <rehrar> but it will be FOSS
18:25:02 <lederstrumpf> but anyone else can use their code to compete with them on this
18:25:07 <lederstrumpf> yes
18:26:05 <rehrar> any yays or nays or questions?
18:27:04 <rehrar> ok, ajs-mob you still here?
18:27:09 <rehrar> last point of discussion
18:27:12 <ajs-mob> yes
18:27:13 <rehrar> Monero Kon thingy.
18:27:15 <rehrar> go for it
18:27:21 <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.
18:27:31 <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.
18:27:49 * sarang returns
18:27:52 <jwinterm> seems ok to me rehrar, not sure how much use it would get, but would be cool option to have
18:28:03 <rehrar> jwinterm: agree
18:28:31 <jwinterm> ajs-mob: can it be hybrid of B/C
18:28:34 <rehrar> ajs-mob: I think we can wait until end of the year to have a more clear idea.
18:28:41 <rehrar> but yeah, maybe a hybrid conference might be cool
18:28:57 <jwinterm> only get a small or free venue with limited tickets, but have virtual option too
18:28:58 <ajs-mob> (D) B & C
18:29:27 <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.
18:29:30 <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
18:29:32 <hyc> safe bet seems to be pure virtual
18:29:50 <rehrar> if we're going pure virtual, then we can do it anytime.
18:30:00 <xmrscott[m]> My vote would be B
18:30:08 <jwinterm> I am attending my first virtual conference next weekend
18:30:17 <jwinterm> expecting it to suck but hoping to be surprised
18:30:19 <rehrar> although virtual was discussed before when this happened and people weren't really for it
18:30:29 <rehrar> and yeah, if I'm being honest, I wouldn't attend a virtual conference
18:30:30 <selsta> I would be for (A), a lot of value of events is them being in person.
18:30:43 <rehrar> I mean a MoneroKon one, sure. But like, literally any other conference, probably not. It's just.....not fun?
18:30:55 <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.
18:31:07 <xmrscott[m]> This is fair. Why 'attend' when you can just watch the recordings later
18:31:20 <xmrscott[m]> (If it's virtual only)
18:31:34 <rehrar> xmrscott[m]. Yes. There is just no way of emulating the way of talking and hanging out with friends.
18:31:53 <ErCiccione[m]> I wuld be for A or B. C is madness in this situation guys
18:32:30 <jwinterm> if it is virtual only I would definitely encourage as much "hallway chatter" as possible
18:32:35 <jwinterm> VR room, IRC room, some games
18:32:45 <jwinterm> but it's honestly not even close to the same
18:32:52 <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.
18:33:12 <hyc> yay, double the management workload!
18:33:41 <rehrar> meh. Yeah. actually. A.
18:33:49 <jwinterm> lol
18:33:52 <rehrar> screw virtual conferences. Just remembered Defcon. It was...blurg.
18:34:16 <ajs-mob> A
18:34:19 <rehrar> MCC is happening right now, as you know.
18:34:19 <sarang> The MCC virtual conference was cool, except that they didn't have it set up to do questions for talks
18:34:32 <sarang> But that was to avoid the audience speaking and interrupting
18:34:33 <rehrar> they're pouring tons of money into making it good
18:34:49 <sarang> also RIP laptop battery while running the VR interface
18:34:54 <rehrar> 1. We don't have nearly that level of money.
18:34:58 <selsta> my laptop can’t even do VR stuff :(
18:35:00 <rehrar> 2. Who knows. Maybe it'll still be meh.
18:35:05 <rehrar> sarang: what VR program are they using?
18:35:09 <selsta> mozilla
18:35:17 <rehrar> ok
18:35:24 <rehrar> alright guys, we can call the meeting here
18:35:31 <rehrar> we're well over time, and I'm sure many of you want to get on with your lives
18:35:33 <rehrar> thank you for coming
18:35:41 <rehrar> Meeting officially adjourned.
18:35:59 <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.
18:36:08 <sarang> rehrar: that Mozilla tool you had played with
18:36:10 <sarang> Hubs?
18:36:25 <sarang> Looks like self-hosted
18:36:32 <rehrar> Hubs, yeah.
18:36:40 <sarang> selsta: I didn't actually use VR
18:36:42 <rehrar> They got custom avatars made for them too.
18:36:46 <sarang> just the screen interface
18:36:48 <sarang> yeah
18:36:59 <rehrar> Made custom islands also.
18:37:03 <rehrar> Dropped the big bucks.
18:37:10 <rehrar> If they can't make it successful, no one can.
18:37:10 <sarang> Yeah, the rooms were crazy
18:37:16 <sarang> The stage I used was a cave with lava
18:37:17 <selsta> sarang: yea my laptop is too bad for it even without VR lol
18:37:22 <sarang> and the lobby was like a castle with a big bridge
18:37:25 <sarang> and portals to the stages
18:37:38 <sarang> selsta: they had livestreams too
18:38:38 <rehrar> I wish I had the business that can drop a lot of money on making things like this. :D
18:38:48 <sarang> It definitely beats a Zoom-type conference like ESORICS did
18:38:55 <sarang> Speaking "into the void" was really unnerving
18:39:19 <jwinterm> someone can just spin up a minecraft server
18:39:25 <hyc> there yago
18:40:36 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Can we ask nicely if we can reuse their world with a Monero reskin?
18:40:46 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Fluffy was involved
18:40:57 <sarang> Yeah, Fluffy did the introductions for my stage today
18:41:06 <sarang> He had a cool pony avatar
18:41:24 <luigi1111w> lots of words and lots of pings
18:41:50 <sarang> If there were to be a MonKon virtually, I'd recommend something like MCC did
18:41:55 <sarang> You can mimic the hallway talk stuff
18:42:10 <sarang> and if you use a single room for talks (as opposed to separating out the audience), you could have questions
18:42:17 <sarang> and just rely on participants not to be jerks
18:42:28 <jwinterm> I'm gonna submit a CCS to define strict requirements for CCS
18:42:30 <hyc> you can't have central mute control?
18:42:35 <jwinterm> sarang: ^
18:42:38 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> VR moderators
18:42:44 <sarang> hyc: no idea how that works
18:42:48 <sarang> they had the "Upstream" room
18:42:50 <sarang> where we spoke
18:43:00 <sarang> and there were three "audience" avatars who were apparently stream cameras
18:43:08 <sarang> and then a "Downstream" room where the audience could watch
18:43:15 <sarang> I don't know the details on how that was precisely arranged
18:43:48 <sarang> Speakers who joined the Upstream room were placed into this small holodeck room with a door that led to the stage
18:43:57 <sarang> it literally looked like the holodeck!
18:44:07 <sarang> pretty slick setup
18:44:12 <rehrar> luigi1111: please read. Worth reading.
18:44:34 <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
18:44:53 <sarang> I was a bit skeptical at first, but looking back I really liked it
18:44:56 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> But you couldn't see/interact with the audience?
18:44:59 <sarang> Nope
18:45:12 <sarang> But: if MonKonVR used a single room for audience and speakers, you could
18:45:36 <sarang> I dunno how the sound broadcast works, since volume decreases as you move away from avatars
18:45:45 <sarang> I assume they fixed that so the audience could hear us all properly
18:45:55 <sarang> I could only see the camera avatars
18:46:21 <sarang> I assume they were streaming into the audience Downstream room, and perhaps to other livestream endpoints
18:47:05 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> They must have had a whole team of people working on that
18:47:13 <sarang> It seemed like quite the operation
18:47:18 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> A reskin would be the only realistic option
18:47:26 <sarang> The environments were insane
18:47:57 <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
18:51:04 <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?
18:52:07 <sarang> I had some questions about some steps in the protocol that aren't blockers
18:52:18 <sarang> And I think the overall privacy implications are TBD
18:52:42 <sarang> But the construction is not obviously wrong (but I have not seen a formal security model for it)
18:53:07 <luigi1111w> that sounds like a yes
18:56:15 <sarang> I don't want to vouch for its correctness in practice, since there are lots of aspects to formally consider
18:57:02 <luigi1111w> I'm not capturing all the nuance in my statement, agreed
18:57:33 <luigi1111w> maybe "not obviously wrong" is the simplest description for now
19:00:15 <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
19:11:24 <luigi1111> well I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. splitting or not seems like a distraction
19:17:51 <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.
19:18:58 <kayabaNerve> I was late to this conversation so I didn't want to chime in as it would've derailed the MoneroKon conversation!
19:19:39 <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
19:20:25 <kayabaNerve> That leaves BlockDX, AtomicDEX, DCR DEX, and Luxgate; the latter two not currently usable, ordered by personal preference
19:20:33 <kayabaNerve> Though AtomicDEX is notably larger
19:20:39 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> I wonder if BISQ could use this implementation
19:20:46 <xmrscott[m]> RE: Utilization, I think there are some interesting situations that could be revealed via atomic swaps
19:21:05 <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
19:21:25 <xmrscott[m]> Not only Bisq, but in general arbitrage
19:21:25 <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
19:21:55 <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
19:22:07 <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.
19:22:23 <xmrscott[m]> So they can sell BTC w/o issue into fiat or whatever to buy more XMR
19:22:34 <kayabaNerve> And then yes, new opportunities open up thanks to atomic swaps.
19:22:46 <ErCiccione[m]> I'm not sure if they use atomic swaps even for BTC/LTC -> They don't AFAIK
19:22:56 <kayabaNerve> Pretty sure not
19:22:58 <luigi1111w> I am missing where they get funding immediately
19:23:04 <luigi1111w> released*
19:23:08 <kayabaNerve> Bisq has colored BTC
19:23:20 <kayabaNerve> Oh :P
19:23:51 <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
19:24:12 <kayabaNerve> Oh. I don't like it, personally, but it's live and has volume
19:24:24 <jwinterm> but it's not actually a dex, right?
19:24:40 <kayabaNerve> It's a DEX, but they also have subatomic swaps for ARRR (where ARRR is ZEC forcing usage of ZK-SNARKS).
19:24:43 <nioc> luigi1111w: not released immediately, 16 milestones I believe
19:24:55 <kayabaNerve> Subatomic swaps are completely trustful, but still not centralized.
19:25:26 <zkao> kayabaNerve: what is a subatomic swap?
19:25:32 <kayabaNerve> zkao: Bullshit
19:25:32 <ErCiccione[m]> luigi1111w: they wouldn't. If the confusion is because of my words, i meant "collected from the community"
19:25:40 <luigi1111w> ah, ok
19:25:42 <nioc> not sure if serious :)
19:25:46 <kayabaNerve> It's completely trustful. It's basically sending signatures for TXs
19:25:56 <zkao> ok
19:26:00 <kayabaNerve> They claim it can resolve in seconds, and you need to manually set a trust threshold with the other party
19:26:20 <kayabaNerve> They are still interested in this. That said, they don't seem to want to offer funding.
19:26:30 <needmoney90> monero transactions confirm the instant they are in the mempool if you manually set your trust thresholds low enough
19:26:34 <zkao> is there are real dex, doing atomic swaps, with volume, right now?
19:26:56 <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.
19:27:04 <kayabaNerve> So... not really worth mentioning.
19:27:06 <zkao> haha
19:27:16 <kayabaNerve> BlockDX/Atomic DEX depending on the pairs
19:27:23 <kayabaNerve> Again, ARRR is subatomic
19:27:28 <kayabaNerve> But they do have proper atomic swaps
19:27:34 <kayabaNerve> And then there's a couple in development
19:27:47 <kayabaNerve> And I was head hunted to build one. Joining a discussion on it Monday :P
19:27:58 <kayabaNerve> Because of my work on ASMR
19:28:56 <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
19:29:02 <kayabaNerve> XMR DeFi anyone? :P
19:29:07 <kayabaNerve> Joking about that horrible idea
19:29:18 <luigi1111w> can I haz some xmr farming plz
19:30:19 <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.
19:31:14 <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.
19:31:58 <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
19:32:18 <kayabaNerve> But I'd hop the community would recognize its value, and I think discussions with other projects may contribute
19:33:00 <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
19:33:00 <lederstrumpf> completed all submilestones of the specification milestone (M1.A-C).
19:33:15 <luigi1111w> got it
19:33:21 <lederstrumpf> It's visualized in this petri net from the proposal: https://codimd.s3.shivering-isles.com/demo/uploads/upload_7f55828cae045fe449addac3b0eab22b.png
19:33:44 <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.
19:33:55 <luigi1111w> agreed
19:34:17 <luigi1111w> a bit tricky to consider these things, I'll have to think about it some more
19:34:46 <kayabaNerve> That's my full statement on it :P There's a reason I didn't chime in earlier during the MK discussions ;)
19:35:11 <kayabaNerve> That said, I completely vote for a digital MK. Viruses are scary. Imagine getting one on the computer with your Monero wallet :O
19:35:37 <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.
19:35:45 <kayabaNerve> But I also don't have the community knowledge to really comment
19:36:06 <jwinterm> I just want to get out of my house
19:36:12 * jwinterm is a selfish jerk
19:36:20 <kayabaNerve> I have a friend in Nano. They suggested the Nano Center, their version of the CCS.
19:36:39 <jwinterm> poor guy
19:36:43 <luigi1111w> thanks for being available for comments etc kayabaNerve
19:36:46 <kayabaNerve> And then DCR has a DAO we can submit a funding proposal through, yet it requires permission from an established DAO member so...
19:36:57 <kayabaNerve> Yeah, happy to help as I can :)
19:37:07 <kayabaNerve> jwinterm: As a developer. Great guy
19:37:20 <kayabaNerve> I mean, I assume he holds it and is subject to the recent price movements...
19:37:49 <jwinterm> some guy tricked me into buying nano, now I'm a nanite
19:38:17 <luigi1111w> oh and you too, lederstrumpf didn't realize it was 2 people since you are both colored the same lol
19:38:46 <jwinterm> wow luigi1111w do all people of that color just look the same to you?
19:38:51 <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.
19:39:15 <kayabaNerve> But that's my personal opinion and I don't want to shill it :P Especially as I'm working on my project
19:39:26 <kayabaNerve> jwinterm: And you thought you were a jerk /s
19:39:54 <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
19:41:08 <lederstrumpf> no worries luigi1111w - would have been an interesting read if I and ErCiccione
19:41:11 <kayabaNerve> I agree it has its flaws. Hence why I have my own project :P
19:41:15 <lederstrumpf> had the same color ;)
19:41:32 <jwinterm> oh are you one of the meros folks kayabaNerve?
19:41:36 <kayabaNerve> And a hefty bag of XMR
19:41:47 <kayabaNerve> *0 XMR. Never bought any. Why would I damage the state apparatus?
19:41:50 <kayabaNerve> Boating accident
19:41:52 <kayabaNerve> No further comment
19:42:08 <kayabaNerve> jwinterm: Yeah. There's a reason ASMR is hosted by MerosCrypto ;)
19:42:17 <kayabaNerve> And why it supported Meros before XMR :P
19:42:40 <kayabaNerve> It supported Nano before XMR to, but that was just because my partner beat me to it. I got busy with other work...
19:42:46 <kayabaNerve> But only a 1 day delay IIRC
19:43:17 <jwinterm> cool, seems like an interesting twist on ye olde raiblocks
19:44:14 <kayabaNerve> Thanks. :) I've been laying the ground work for stealth addresses and have been looking into CTs.
19:44:31 <kayabaNerve> I fully understand SAs aren't privacy, just a tool to enable it; wont pull a Verge.
19:44:57 <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.
19:45:22 <kayabaNerve> But I'm really hopeful for a good relationship with XMR as a whole. I truly love the project.
19:45:37 <jwinterm> when do you guys think you're gonna go live?
19:45:47 <kayabaNerve> That said, I don't have any money to spare and the project can't contribute to the CCS proposal :P
19:45:58 <kayabaNerve> Ready by EOY, maybe Jan due to holidays, if all goes well
19:46:21 <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?
19:46:42 <kayabaNerve> I did say can, not must.
19:47:09 <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.
19:47:37 <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
19:47:39 <kayabaNerve> But that's more of a discussion for the larger CCS I'm raising due to the size of this proposal
19:47:40 <ErCiccione[m]> Yeah that makes sense.
19:48:08 <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.
19:48:19 <ErCiccione[m]> It's actually a good idea reguardless. If core is ok with that, we would only need somebody to code it up
19:49:04 <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 :)
19:53:25 <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
19:53:25 <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
19:54:05 <suraeNoether> i don't want to jump into the conversation so late, but i wanted to pitch my two cents
19:55:09 <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
19:55:29 <suraeNoether> just like (i think) most monero folks don't want a government agency starting to drive development
19:56:23 <kayabaNerve> suraeNoether: Do you have any relation to sarang? Just curious
19:56:36 <suraeNoether> i don't want to speak for sarang, but even an overall *sense* of gatekeeping is enough to act as a chilling effect
19:56:47 <zkao> they're sisters
19:56:52 <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"
19:56:54 <kayabaNerve> Ah, got it :)
19:56:56 <suraeNoether> we're in a band together
19:56:58 <jwinterm> they're brothers in bald
19:56:59 <h4sh3d[m]> Haha
19:57:01 <zkao> hahaha
19:57:06 <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
19:57:45 <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.
19:58:36 <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
19:59:05 <ErCiccione[m]> changing such system would mean change a well maintained equilibrium, and many aspect will need to be reconsidered.
20:00:40 <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)...
20:00:47 <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
20:01:41 <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.
20:01:47 <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.
20:02:09 <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
20:02:40 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: My point is again not about distributing money, but collecting it
20:03:31 <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?
20:04:27 <dEBRUYNE> Given the limited amount of funding available, I'd say scrutiny is warranted
20:04:54 <dEBRUYNE> If we get a lot of substandard proposals, it may deplete the available pool of funding quite quickly
20:05:04 <luigi1111w> <jwinterm> wow luigi1111w do all people of that color just look the same to you? <= yes, the green people
20:05:07 <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
20:05:27 <ErCiccione[m]> *ask questions
20:06:28 <ErCiccione[m]> A certain degree of vetting is necessary in a system like the CCS IMO
20:06:42 <dEBRUYNE> Some donors may also not have the technical capability to review certain proposals and assess their viability
20:06:53 <dEBRUYNE> Thus essentially relying on others for the 'vetting process'
20:06:55 <rehrar> Nobody disagrees with this. We disagree with the degree of vetting.
20:07:11 <rehrar> Acting like lessening the vetting is saying no vetting and that's not true.
20:07:16 <ErCiccione[m]> dEBRUYNE:  exactly what i mean with "who word a proposal better wins"
20:07:52 <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
20:07:52 <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.
20:08:01 <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
20:08:03 <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
20:08:20 <rehrar> suraeNoether: and that's the clincher.
20:08:24 <suraeNoether> and now i'm participating in it on someone else's behalf :P
20:08:25 <rehrar> We can look at closed proposals.
20:08:27 <jwinterm> but I'm not sure above and beyond that if there should be a committee or a luigi selecting worthy and unworthy proposals
20:08:32 <rehrar> But we can never see the unopened ones.
20:08:42 <suraeNoether> i don't know how to fix this problem, for the record
20:08:51 <suraeNoether> i agree with ErCiccione[m] that there's a noise to signal issue
20:09:03 <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.
20:09:05 <suraeNoether> i can just share what i've experienced. *shrug* besides, atomic swaps are cool.
20:09:24 <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
20:09:43 <rehrar> ErCiccione[m]: then someone make this system.
20:09:44 <jwinterm> yea, I agree dumping into general fund is not ideal
20:09:51 <jwinterm> refundable system would be nice
20:09:55 <rehrar> And put it as an alternative to the CCS.
20:10:08 <jwinterm> or CCS to upgrade CCS
20:10:19 <jwinterm> CCSs all the way down
20:10:24 <rehrar> jwinterm: would never get past the gatekeepers
20:10:36 <jwinterm> :P
20:10:57 <rehrar> As of now, core has chosen not to put effort into keeping tabs on donations for refunding.
20:11:18 <rehrar> If someone would like to make such a system, then they can do so. If it outperforms the CCS, then awesome!
20:11:18 <ErCiccione[m]> Well, we are here to discuss a change on how the CCS works no?
20:11:54 <jwinterm> I'm mostly here cause I'm waiting for my wife to get home so we can go to the pool
20:12:16 <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
20:12:28 <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 :(
20:17:01 <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
20:17:53 <kayabaNerve> How are spend proofs hacky?
20:18:34 <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
20:18:37 <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
20:18:58 <TheCharlatan> suraeNoether surely the transaction construction issues can be UX'ed away.
20:19:00 <ErCiccione[m]> kayabaNerve: it wouldn't be an immediate/simple system as having return addresses
20:19:03 <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?
20:19:20 <rehrar> This is the core of the problem. What should the default be on contention. Inaction or action?
20:19:24 <rehrar> for the CCS specifically
20:19:37 <rehrar> Xeagu's was non-controversial. Literally nobody wanted it.
20:19:55 <rehrar> There are others that see a split of community sentiment. Loose consensus is not easily achieved.
20:20:03 <kayabaNerve> True, but not hacky :P
20:20:21 <rehrar> In such a case, should the default be to merge and let the community decide, or to not merge?
20:20:32 <kayabaNerve> rehrar: RRS? RehRar System?
20:20:48 <kayabaNerve> :P
20:21:08 <kayabaNerve> What was Xeagu's?
20:21:18 <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"?
20:23:32 <ErCiccione[m]> that because i don't think we are being too strict or too loose, but i do think the system needs improvements
20:24:18 <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
20:24:51 <asy> kayabaNerve: church of monero related nonsense
20:24:55 <ErCiccione[m]> imo jwinterm proposal for a minimal vetting would work well if ^ would be implemented
20:25:13 <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
20:25:31 <ErCiccione[m]> but cannot be simply "merge all" "merge nothing", that's simplicistic and doesn't really solve any problem, jsut create more
20:25:51 <ErCiccione[m]> zkao[m]: yeah, that's why agree some changes would be beneficial
20:27:44 <rehrar> ok, here's an idea
20:27:47 <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
20:27:56 <ErCiccione[m]> luigi1111 any opinion about that?
20:27:57 <rehrar> what if, rather than going into the GF any 'excess funds' or other funds went to a separate CCS fund
20:28:03 <rehrar> who goal is simply to pay into CCS's
20:28:32 <ErCiccione[m]> rehrar: That's part of what i'm proposing :)
20:28:40 <luigi1111w> ErCiccione[m] that sounds reasonable
20:28:48 <luigi1111w> not sold on refunds as an idea though
20:28:58 <rehrar> refunds would take a massive amount of work
20:29:56 <h4sh3d[m]> luigi1111w: Technically or “philosophically”?
20:29:57 <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
20:30:16 <luigi1111w> mostly technically
20:30:58 <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
20:30:58 <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.
20:31:07 <ErCiccione[m]> I do see refunds as an important part of that system tho, but at least we are moving forward :D
20:31:28 <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
20:31:39 <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"
20:31:43 <rehrar> prorated meaning if one of two 50% milestones has already been paid out, then they get 50% of their donation.
20:33:06 <rehrar> who would do this accounting work?
20:33:08 <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?
20:33:10 <h4sh3d[m]> Prorata on collected but unreleased funds
20:34:30 <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
20:35:05 <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
20:35:37 <ErCiccione[m]> I don't think doing it manually would be feasible without a dedicated effort, no. Maybe can be automated
20:36:36 <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
20:36:39 <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.
20:37:02 <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: and I haven't argued for a super lax approach to vetting. I'm not saying no vetting should be done.
20:37:11 <rehrar> But contentious proposals should err towards merge rather than not merge imo.
20:37:32 <rehrar> Will repeat once again, but proposals like xeagu's were not contentious. Everyone agreed it was bad. There was no contention.
20:38:37 <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
20:38:55 <dEBRUYNE> but rather personal ideas on how the community should spend their money. <= Well, not necessarily
20:38:56 <rehrar> I disagree with you as to the current state of the system
20:39:24 <dEBRUYNE> My worry was more that it is a huge ask and there is a possibility that it will ultimately be utilized very little
20:39:56 <dEBRUYNE> Hence, my suggestion to seek some kind of partner (e.g. an existing DEX) in addition to the proposal
20:40:01 <rehrar> like multisig?
20:40:20 <dEBRUYNE> The hardware wallet basically has/had the same problem
20:40:27 <dEBRUYNE> There was no concrete plan for getting actual devices to people
20:40:52 <rehrar> getting actual devices to people was never part of that proposal, but I know most people didn't see it that way
20:41:12 <dEBRUYNE> It was kind of implied if I recall correctly, but that is another matter to discuss I suppose
20:41:29 <rehrar> the deliverable of the first proposal was a spec
20:41:39 <rehrar> the deliverable of the second proposal was a casing for it
20:41:53 <rehrar> I know that people think that completed spec + completed casing = finished proudct
20:42:12 <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
20:42:18 <ErCiccione[m]> dEBRUYNE: It was, you are right. There were even talks about a price
20:42:19 <dEBRUYNE> We're digressing here
20:42:58 <dEBRUYNE> If this proposal gets successfully funded, there will essentially be an open source library for atomic swaps
20:43:02 <rehrar> ErCiccione[m]: price of production and manufacturing and speculating on a subsequent retail price doesn't.....
20:43:06 <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: ok
20:43:10 <dEBRUYNE> But your average Monero user will have little benefit of it if there is no concrete implementation
20:43:12 <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
20:43:12 <zkao> collaboration, but would not like to have a direct influence from them
20:43:58 <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: yes, but businesses are users also, and arguably as the businesses and ecosystem grows, the usecases of Monero grow
20:44:14 <rehrar> leading to more people checking it out.
20:44:39 <dEBRUYNE> Business still will probably need assistance with actually integrating the library
20:44:44 <dEBRUYNE> hence my suggestion to partner
20:44:48 <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.
20:44:51 <dEBRUYNE> They typically also have more money available
20:45:29 <rehrar> look, I have no idea how much this will be used
20:45:32 <rehrar> but neither does anyone else
20:45:39 <dEBRUYNE> zkao: That seems like a bit of an inefficient process, to be honest
20:46:01 <dEBRUYNE> I don't think integrity will be affected that much by business contributing to the CCS (if you asked directly)
20:46:13 <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
20:46:21 <dEBRUYNE> Fact of the matter is that unless there is a straight forward implementation, it will see little usage
20:46:36 <dEBRUYNE> Ease of use basically equals amount of usage
20:47:22 <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
20:47:39 <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
20:48:08 <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.
20:48:10 <dEBRUYNE> Would it be possible to strike a deal and let them donate through the CCS?
20:49:02 <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.
20:49:34 <zkao> we're 5 people, cant answer for my colaborators, dEBRUYNE
20:49:50 <dEBRUYNE> OK
20:49:59 <dEBRUYNE> To be clear, don't see it as a stance against the proposal
20:50:12 <dEBRUYNE> It is more of a worry of the return of 'investment'
20:52:15 <zkao> dEBRUYNE: do u have any specific project in mind?
20:56:32 <dEBRUYNE> zkao: Not necessarily, but kayabaNerve listed plenty of DEXes
20:56:49 <dEBRUYNE> I merely would like to see some integration such that users can easily enjoy the benefits of XMR <-> BTC atomic swaps
20:57:11 <zkao> yes, he listed a bunch and all of them are scammy looking
20:57:25 <zkao> and they call atomic swaps what is not an atomic swap
20:58:23 <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.
20:58:58 <kayabaNerve> An ADA developer was interested in the protocol. Said I'd be happy to talk it over/help out :)
20:59:02 <kayabaNerve> "yeah all this code will need to be ported to haskell" lol
20:59:24 <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
20:59:48 <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.
21:00:21 <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
21:00:27 <kayabaNerve> I personally like BlockDX
21:00:44 <kayabaNerve> I personally don't like AtomicDEX
21:00:54 <kayabaNerve> I personally don't mind DCR DEX but have no hopes for it
21:01:17 <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
21:01:45 <kayabaNerve> *And then ADEX may not want to contribute anything meaningful.
21:04:09 <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.
21:04:31 <kayabaNerve> But we'd need the CCS proposal to be live first so we can actually point them towards it
21:05:08 <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.
21:05:10 <zkao> kayabaNerve: can u reach out to them when the CCS proposal is live?
21:06:36 <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
21:06:52 <kayabaNerve> But at least giving them the heads up for a good relationship would be good :)
21:07:05 <kayabaNerve> And then Luxgate definitely doesn't have the funding, infrastructure, readiness, existing quality...
21:07:17 <kayabaNerve> I'm just mentioning DEX tech in general when I bring them up
21:07:41 <zkao> its hard for dex to make money, its a decentralized network
21:07:46 <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
21:07:52 <kayabaNerve> BlockDX has a native token
21:08:11 <kayabaNerve> Every trade of any pair charges some of it I believe to a DAO
21:08:17 <kayabaNerve> And then DCR has a DEX
21:08:22 <kayabaNerve> No idea ADEX's model
21:08:27 <kayabaNerve> *And the BlockDX team has bags
21:08:56 <zkao> bisq looks like hard to integrate to new tech, they dont even have segwit activated, and its been 3 years now
21:10:52 <ErCiccione[m]> Yeah and that's an understatement :P
21:12:01 <ErCiccione[m]> btw i'm sure they wouldn't help with funding this
21:12:44 <ErCiccione[m]> they have their own financial problems at the moment and only reenctly they started to care a bit more about xmr users
21:12:51 <zkao> erciccione_[m]:  is that community messed up?
21:13:07 <zkao> oh, i see
21:14:32 <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.
21:15:05 <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
21:16:39 <ErCiccione[m]> With "i left screaming" you have to picture me running away screaming because went crazy, not screaming at them :P
21:17:36 <kayabaNerve> Alrighty. Just wanted to comment about them
21:18:17 <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.
21:18:22 <kayabaNerve> *beggars.
21:20:06 <zkao> what do u mean, we dress like beggars, behave like beggars, why cant we appear like beggars?
21:38:04 <lederstrumpf> :D