Cool! Thanks. Comparing with another transaction recently, I guess the "only" noticeable difference on the link are the number of zeros in the extra field (which I guess is the nonce?)

Sorry! Wrong chat window *embarrassed face*

19:24 <moneromooo> Some wallet apparently started spending coins before 10 blocks, so we added a rule to slap it back down. It might well be that, since those txes are now invalid. <-- but that wouldn’t apply to normal wallets, right?

normal = unmodified

Unless bug.

Would logs show up on daemon side?

Yes.

Ok. Maybe people who run public nodes can check their logs if something unusual is showing up.

If they are on level 1.

binaryFate: can you set the xmr.to public node to log level 1?

maybe we can get logs this way

what log are you looking for?

can do tomorrow

pending transaction issue

we have a lot of reports of it but no logs

ah yes, ok can do in the morning, probably not this evening

ok thanks

running now level 1, I can post some logs after dinner

I would wait 24h with log level 1 or so

ok

Question for everybody, I am currently working on a project that "could" increase fungibility of Monero by axing the ability for miners to ask for anything less than the base_reward amount. My particular hurdle is working with C++ since I don't work with it alot.

I would be interested to see data on how common this is

what effect does it have on fungibility? if i decide to mine a block but not take the full reward

Your transaction has a distinguishing characteristic, which is generally good to avoid

What is the question ?

Are there good reasons to keep the current behavior?

(that's my question, at least)

Sorry, I was asking PRetailer, who left us hanging :)

haha sorry, i was talking with a fellow looking at the codebase.

luigi1111 said the quantization could be used to decrease the amount range and save space IIRC.

i was asking where the change would be in the codebase. Im looking at block validation in blockchain.cpp. Reason: i suck at C++

and whether its better to just axe the field where the miner can ask for less or keep it there but add a verifier which throws an error if somebody does try to ask for less.

also, if anybody is against this, please say something. i like debate

why would the miner ask for less?

in blockchain.cpp, search for: // From hard fork 2, we allow a miner to claim less block reward than is allowed, in case a miner wants less dust

Replace "if (version < 2)" with "if (version < 2 || version >= HV_VERSION_FULL_COINBASE)" and add that new define to cryponote_config.h

You'll have to set quantization to 1 rather than 10k somewhere too. git grep quantiz.

I don't think it increases fingibility to any significant degree

That was to avoid getting idiotic 0.00000000002 outputs.

fun

Or 0.000000000732

anyway the decrease in size doesn't matter for bulletproofs

it's a kinda meh sure change it (for size reasons not mattering anymore)

that's quantizing though, there may be other considerations for fixing the amount

We could conceivably force the quantized amount too :)

hmmm can you explain why you would want to force quantizing too? (sorry for the questions, im newish to working with code in general) I focused more on economic stuff so this is basically new to me.

To get homogeneity for this, but still have quantized amounts.

Is coveralls still used?

It never was. Someone affiliated with them contributed some setup and left. I have no idea how to use it. It might be useful if we can work out how it works.

It stopped updating in 2016. Guess someone of the team has to login and check why. Not sure.