10:35:05 is there a simple way of distinguishing the amount of integrated address use vs subaddress use? 10:35:51 i'd like to display the % use of each on my monero stats website 11:33:09 If extra has an extra pubkeys field, it means at least one recipient used a subaddress. For integrated address vs standard, you can't really tell since a dummy one's added now. 12:26:09 how do i decode the extra? "extra - Usually called the "payment ID" but can be used to include any random 32 bytes." 12:26:24 i see small ones and long ones (https://xmrchain.net/tx/4ae2efacfbe892fddc696decf7a91ad16aee7856c538067774b2ffa19f0e7c12, https://xmrchain.net/tx/f706cd689b93048165beb76949430e7f12c28b8db46b7399113dd25b3a2545bc) 12:28:35 parse_tx_extra (cryptonote_format_utils.h) 12:30:57 ty 12:33:06 There's probably an english explanation somewhere on monero.stackexchange.com. 12:33:55 there is, neat 14:07:21 "it means at least one recipient used a subaddress" - and that means that the transaction definitely paid a subaddress? 14:10:22 if i were to count all tx with no "TX_EXTRA_TAG_ADDITIONAL_PUBKEYS" byte as "not a subaddress transaction", that would be correct? 14:10:37 https://xmrchain.net/tx/4ae2efacfbe892fddc696decf7a91ad16aee7856c538067774b2ffa19f0e7c12 has nothing after the 01 + Tx public key 14:11:28 this one has 2 but only "0901ae7f50479094ab30" after it https://xmrchain.net/tx/f706cd689b93048165beb76949430e7f12c28b8db46b7399113dd25b3a2545bc 14:12:14 this one has 4 like https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/11733/how-to-parse-tx-extra-tag-additional-pubkeys-from-extra describes: https://xmrchain.net/tx/aed9becf83c2f8f7fc50f104dc521507092ae983f3873793793e4fb81a0eaa3b 14:20:52 No, someone could add this tag without paying a subaddress. 14:29:52 can anyone think of a prettier solution than ifdef? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/6488#issuecomment-622505062 14:30:43 a print function / lambda that uses the correct cout? 14:31:03 A function that does it, so at least you have just one of them. 14:31:20 ok 14:31:45 It's odd it wouldn't work though, since printing messages works on Windows (or we'd have heard about it). 14:32:01 So why does it not work with those particular calls ? 14:32:58 And maybe the chars should be sent encoded as UTF-8, rather than code points. 14:33:05 * moneromooo guessing 14:33:51 will try utf8 first 14:34:13 but AFAIK windows console + utf8 is always a bit tricky 14:35:38 "ga" in vim shows encoding for any char. 14:41:55 ga looks quite useful 14:42:53 "ga" like in (g)aracter (a)ncoding, I guess? 14:43:37 moneromooo: you mean like this? https://paste.debian.net/hidden/f6b3de8b/ 14:44:21 I was thinking the hex codes, but I guess if it works like that, even better :) 14:44:59 seems to also work on mac, iDunk could you test on top of latest version of my PR? 14:45:30 and if it does not work, please try again https://stackoverflow.com/questions/45575863/how-to-print-utf-8-strings-to-stdcout-on-windows/45622802#45622802 15:36:27 why would somebody add the tag without paying a subaddress? 15:36:46 is there even a good way of seeing how often subaddresses are used vs not subaddresses? 15:36:50 To confuse your system. 15:38:21 so it's unlikely? then it seems like a nice way of seeing the adoption rate/use of subaddresses? 15:41:34 Yes, unlikely. But your question was "and that means that the transaction definitely paid a subaddress?" 15:42:35 i appreciate it 17:16:32 azy counting pub keys is not nearly enough to know how many tx have a sub address recipient, since most or all 2-output tx with a subaddress recipient will have 1 tx pub key, and even some >2 output tx 17:35:18 are there any must have PRs still open that have to get into v0.15.1.0? 17:35:30 6409 6418 (I've not reviewed the 0mq specific stuff though) 6431 6441 6451 6467 6468 6471 6472 6477 6478 6480 6481 6484 6485 6486 17:35:41 that.. was quick 17:35:43 :P 17:35:58 Sorry. I just failed the Turing test didn't I. 17:36:29 I had just sent dEBRUYNE that list :P 17:36:38 (phew, nice save) 17:36:40 :D 17:40:15 Any opinions on 6426 6427 ? It feels iffy (especially the latter), but no strong dislike. 17:41:23 Also if someone who uses docker can check 6428 6434 that would be nice. 17:41:52 6428 is a duplicate 17:41:57 I thought we closed it already.. 17:42:18 6421: not sure about that one, it might make DoS easier. Any opinion ? 17:42:19 I commented on 6434 17:44:50 sarang: I assume 6329 is still WIP as it's still marked as such ? 18:03:15 moneromooo: can you close 6428 as a duplicate of 6420? I can’t do it 18:04:42 done. 19:52:24 6329 needs a unit test with a V1 proof 19:58:12 selsta: it doesn't work, but nothing's changed, really. 20:02:53 iDunk: okay, one more question, does the endl also have to be printed out with wcout? 20:06:38 It doesn't even print a single line, so inconclusive. 20:08:03 I meant with your patch 20:08:13 that you posted on Github 20:08:40 Yes, otherwise everything gets printed on a single line, IIRC. 20:09:59 With that SO patch, I lose colors if I set vbuff to 1000, colors still there with vbuff 0. And that's with and without u8. 20:10:31 Btw, that SO article seems to be for VS, not mingw.