08:46:32 <azy> can you confirm that a subaddress belongs to a pub/viewkey pair?
10:29:25 <normo> .1
10:29:28 <normo> ./1
17:01:33 <ErCiccione[m]> Meeting time?
17:01:51 <rbrunner> 17:00 UTC checks out at least ...
17:02:41 <ErCiccione[m]> who is here?
17:03:30 <kinghat[m]> o/
17:03:49 <rbrunner> 3 is almost a crowd :)
17:04:10 <kinghat[m]> maybe pps need pinged
17:04:18 <moneromooo> I can be if you need a fourth.
17:04:55 <ErCiccione[m]> selsta?
17:05:05 <ErCiccione[m]> i think mainpoint would be the upcoming release
17:05:19 <selsta> yes hi
17:06:01 <ErCiccione[m]> alright, let's do this thing
17:06:27 <ErCiccione[m]> so at the end we are going for 0.16
17:06:36 <rbrunner> Loose consensus?
17:06:38 <ErCiccione[m]> i guess nothing was decided yet about the name
17:06:38 <selsta> we branched already
17:07:16 <ErCiccione[m]> yeah i saw the PR. So now some days of cooldown?
17:08:16 <selsta> it would be best if we have testers
17:08:17 <ErCiccione[m]> rbrunner: about the name thing? no idea. It's fine for me either way. As long as we make clear to people that it's not a hard fork
17:08:29 <rbrunner> So anything that comes trailing now goes to both master and that branch, right?
17:08:42 <selsta> rbrunner: yes
17:08:50 <moneromooo> Either that or master only.
17:08:56 <selsta> branch = bug fixed only
17:09:01 <rbrunner> Ok
17:09:03 <selsta> fixes*
17:09:11 <ErCiccione[m]> Would be probably good to post something on social medias. Asking people to test
17:09:57 <ErCiccione[m]> people are translating the GUI a lot. The problem is that we have few reviewers
17:10:13 <selsta> There will be one more Trezor PR
17:10:17 <ErCiccione[m]> i will pr the translations in the next days
17:10:20 <selsta> and I have to ping Ledger dev
17:10:34 <selsta> so that they can prepare release
17:10:40 <selsta> ErCiccione[m]: nice
17:11:33 <ErCiccione[m]> When the changelod is ready can i have a copy before it's published? So i can prepare the blog post earlier
17:12:02 <selsta> yes
17:12:53 <selsta> so regarding name: should we open a meta issue?
17:12:55 <ErCiccione[m]> Thanks
17:13:10 <dEBRUYNE> Joining in now, apologies for being a bit late :P
17:13:15 <ErCiccione[m]> yeah i think would be good
17:13:17 <sgp_> Same ^
17:13:42 <dEBRUYNE> <selsta> it would be best if we have testers <= I intend to create a thread on Reddit with a call for testers
17:14:06 <selsta> I can create binaries but people would have to trust me
17:14:11 <ErCiccione[m]> Nice. Thanks dEBRUYNE
17:14:15 <selsta> or someone can also do reproduce builds
17:14:22 <dEBRUYNE> I was thinking of simply adding compile instructions
17:14:26 <dEBRUYNE> For the CLI they are quite straight forward
17:14:43 <selsta> yep ok
17:15:20 <ErCiccione[m]> is snipa going to be around for this release?
17:15:34 <selsta> for GUI binaries yes hopefully
17:15:48 <selsta> he did setup all the new dependencies
17:16:42 <ErCiccione[m]> yeah but afaiu he has been busy lately. Just wanted to make sure he is not missing at the last minute :P
17:16:49 <selsta> I would say we should merge https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/6515 before doing a reddit thread
17:17:05 <selsta> so that people have correct version number and hashes
17:17:22 <moneromooo> You'd do a 0.16.0.1 then ?
17:17:51 <dEBRUYNE> I think the tag has not been set yet?
17:17:55 <iDunk> Here's my gitian builds (CLI binaries) folder on Mega, if someone wants to test  https://mega.nz/#F!mYNlTKAK!nFd2jfflDxvAJB_AQa_xXA
17:18:02 <iDunk> It hasn't, AFAIK.
17:18:45 <selsta> moneromooo: no
17:18:55 <selsta> unless I’m missing something?
17:19:07 <moneromooo> You would have 0.16.0.0 refer to two different codebases ?
17:19:21 <selsta> Not sure if I understand
17:19:30 <selsta> I would not tag yet
17:19:44 <selsta> until we did a bit of testing
17:19:45 <iDunk> #6514 should be deleted.
17:19:58 <ErCiccione[m]> it's too early to tag no? we just branched
17:20:02 <iDunk> IIRC, we merge the branch back to master.
17:20:19 <iDunk> And then master gets the v0.16.0.0 version.
17:20:21 <selsta> iDunk: hmm we did not do this the last times
17:20:42 <selsta> fluffy usually created two PRs
17:21:43 <rbrunner> I remember likewise. No merge back the last few times, no?
17:21:59 <rbrunner> Such double PR's instead
17:22:03 <moneromooo> I don't remember a merge back.
17:22:10 <selsta> moneromooo: can you elaborate? We usually updated the version number in both branches but v0.16.0.0 will be tagged from release-v0.16 branch
17:22:16 <dEBRUYNE> My mind remembers double PRs as well :-P
17:22:18 <iDunk> Hmm, right. I must have misremembered.
17:22:31 <iDunk> Double PRs they were.
17:23:19 <moneromooo> I mean that if you bump version to something, then tell people to get it, then don't bump the version again if you change the tree, it's a bit sucky. Not hugely sucky though.
17:23:52 <moneromooo> So I'm just mentioning this but not arguing against if you want to do it.
17:23:53 <rbrunner> Ah, because we don't have any numbering for something like betas in place?
17:23:59 <moneromooo> We do -_-
17:24:16 <iDunk> I think the version on master would stay at 0.16.0.0, or I'm not getting it.
17:24:18 <moneromooo> That's why there are 4 version numner fields.
17:24:40 <selsta> I thought we will ask people to test the release-v0.16 branch and not tag until shortly before release
17:24:58 <ErCiccione[m]> that's how we usually did, no?
17:25:03 <iDunk> Right, so the tag would be v0.16.0.0 on the branch.
17:25:06 <selsta> so that we can get last minute fixes in without retagging
17:25:06 <moneromooo> Yes.
17:25:26 <moneromooo> Tags should not change commit. That is *very* sucky.
17:25:45 <selsta> Did not intend to do that.
17:26:06 <selsta> Worst case is we will do v0.16.0.1
17:26:08 <dEBRUYNE> My intention was too to let people test the branch
17:26:19 <selsta> if we find something after tagging
17:27:00 <moneromooo> That's the best case.
17:27:01 <rbrunner> I think also it would be nice if people try something under a version number of 0.16.0.0, and what they receive as final has something different, 0.16.0.1, for clarity
17:27:26 <rbrunner> We won't run out of version number, will we?
17:28:00 <ErCiccione[m]> i think at the point would just be better to have RC releases. But we discussed this before and people weren't entusiast about it
17:28:20 <rbrunner> So, as moneromooo maybe meant to say, the 4th digit goes up it goes out of beta
17:28:25 <ErCiccione[m]> i would just give people instructions to build the branch and tag after everything is ready. At least that's what we did in past
17:28:32 <selsta> ErCiccione[m]: no rc releases
17:28:43 <iDunk> I still don't get it. People would be testing v0.16.0.0-hash (after 6515 is merged).
17:29:04 <iDunk> Then 0.16.0.0-release would be the final one after the tag.
17:29:10 <ErCiccione[m]> selsta: yeah, i'm not proposing that anymore :)
17:29:36 <rbrunner> Sounds good also
17:30:29 <selsta> iDunk: yep
17:32:38 <ErCiccione[m]> Anything else we should talk about?
17:33:30 <vtnerd__> Crap missed the meeting :/
17:33:40 <selsta> fluffy says the DNS provider still has the DNS locked, he will call them again
17:34:03 <vtnerd__> No updates, working on updating the light wallet server to be outside of the main repo
17:34:11 <selsta> should we think of hardcoding new servers if this does not get resolved?
17:34:38 <rbrunner> New servers? New seed nodes?
17:34:54 <selsta> updates.moneropulse.org
17:35:07 <selsta> still has v0.15.0.1
17:35:22 <moneromooo> binaryFate: do you have a set of suitable domains for this ?
17:37:00 <selsta> oh and I think we also wanted to remove unknown seed nodes that are down for a while now
17:37:08 <selsta> https://community.xmr.to/xmr-seed-nodes has the current status
17:37:36 <ErCiccione[m]> Agree
17:39:06 <binaryFate> arf missed meeting. Domain for the seeds? I have to check with pony. Otherwise we can get some quickly next few days
17:39:54 <moneromooo> That was for the update DNS records.
17:40:15 <moneromooo> selta was asking for a plan B in case the transfer to you never happens.
17:41:04 <binaryFate> It's not transfer to me but giving me access (fluffypony will conserve access too). The team has been created, but I don't know what's blocking transfer
17:42:00 <moneromooo> AFAIK pony asked for hoops for security, and he's not getting to jump.
17:42:07 <moneromooo> *now getting
17:42:31 <rbrunner> Sigh, jumping ponies
17:42:48 <binaryFate> fluffypony if you're around can you give an update ^
17:43:24 <selsta> he told me a few days ago that the it’s mid transfer and the provider locked the DNS
17:43:32 <selsta> but this has been going on for months now
17:43:41 <selsta> and he will call them
17:44:34 <binaryFate> that's becoming really urgent now, right?
17:44:57 <selsta> yes, gui has a new updater that requires update DNS getting updated
17:45:19 <binaryFate> I think the DNS transfer was agree in Jan, so yes that has been months
17:45:39 <binaryFate> I can't call them myself and ask for it obviously
17:45:49 <moneromooo> Reminds me, does the GUI have gitian builds yet ? I still have my updater patches I can push once it does.
17:46:03 <selsta> not yet, we need proper cmake support first
17:46:16 <selsta> and cmake only works on linux or windows
17:46:21 <ErCiccione[m]> Does it make sense to use different DNS already? We don't want to risk to arrive at tag day with the problem still not solved
17:46:45 <selsta> I’m just planning an alternative if this can’t get resolved
17:46:56 <selsta> I would prefer not to change it
17:47:20 <ErCiccione[m]> Yeah would be definitely better to not change it, but we have really few time here.
17:48:01 <ErCiccione[m]> I mena. How long do we want to wait if we want to tag in few days?
17:49:05 <fluffypony> binaryFate: last contact from them was Friday
17:49:10 <fluffypony> they said next week
17:49:18 <fluffypony> I can change the records in the meantime
17:49:32 <fluffypony> just need to know what tio
17:49:33 <fluffypony> *to
17:49:42 <selsta> not yet we did not release the new version yet
17:49:58 <selsta> and changing the dns to the old version for a few days does not sound worth it
17:50:02 <fluffypony> yeah I know - I mean I can change it if it's released before the xfer has finished
17:50:06 <selsta> ok
17:50:28 <selsta> well then we don’t have to change it
17:50:55 <selsta> I thought it was locked as in not changeable.
17:53:14 <fluffypony> oh - no, it's already on the new account and just needs to be released from the old one, but in the meantime I can make changes on the old one
17:53:57 <binaryFate> ok so all is well for release
17:55:14 <ErCiccione[m]> Nice.
17:55:44 <ErCiccione[m]> If we are done, i'm going to make dinner.
17:56:35 <selsta> Ok someone has to review 6515 and then luigi1111w has to merge it
17:57:02 <selsta> and afterwards we can ask for testers on Reddit
17:57:50 <ErCiccione[m]> sounds like a plan
18:00:06 <dEBRUYNE> Anything specific that testers need to look out for?
18:00:08 <dEBRUYNE> cc moneromooo
18:07:25 <moneromooo> Dandelion I guess.
18:07:33 <moneromooo> That's the big thing this time.
18:08:17 <moneromooo> Possibly also P2P traffic. Should be ~ a third less (and two thirds once most people have updated).
18:08:44 <moneromooo> And anything they usually do that's not the basic stuff.
18:15:35 <selsta> iDunk: our hashes don’t match
18:15:57 <vtnerd__> Yeah make sure those txes still get distributed
18:16:09 <iDunk> For that same commit ?
18:16:17 <selsta> yes
18:16:32 <selsta> gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04)
18:17:18 <iDunk> And you also did a gitian build ?
18:17:31 <selsta> yep, earlier today
18:17:56 <selsta> https://paste.debian.net/hidden/09620c75/
18:17:59 <iDunk> I did mine last night. I'll update to see if anything has changed.
18:18:44 <iDunk> Nope, no updates in Ubuntu.
18:20:02 <selsta> hmm
18:24:26 <iDunk> My hashes match yours :)
18:24:54 <selsta> do they? :P
18:25:09 <iDunk> You used SHA1 instead of SHA256 ;)
18:25:28 <selsta> ahh lol
18:26:14 <selsta> well at least no problem with reproducible builds :D
18:33:24 <dEBRUYNE> Can anyone review/approve 6515 btw?
18:35:28 <selsta> it’s the same as 6514
18:40:22 <ErCiccione[m]> Should we have another meeting next sunday?
18:40:58 <ErCiccione[m]> Probably better to have weekly meeting until the release it's done
18:48:48 <dEBRUYNE> selsta: Ah, missed that that one was already approved
18:55:18 <needbrrrrrrr90> whats the name of the tech that has miners pick their own txes for the pool or whatever?
18:55:30 * needbrrrrrrr90 is hitting a blank
18:56:27 <moneromooo> Might be stratum ?
18:56:35 <moneromooo> Or getblocktemplate.
18:56:46 <moneromooo> IIRC monero uses that name for something that's inferior to the bitcoin version.
18:56:50 <moneromooo> getwork ?
18:57:02 <needbrrrrrrr90> I thought we had upcoming tech that wasnt out yet
18:57:53 <moneromooo> jtgrassie patched a pool to do that I believe.
18:58:03 <moneromooo> Nobody wants to run it because it's work.
19:10:19 <needbrrrrrrr90> aha, I found it
19:10:21 <needbrrrrrrr90> thank you
19:10:34 <needbrrrrrrr90> https://github.com/jtgrassie/monero-pool/blob/97c3993cf7dbd069dbcaa1ec1eaa675fe8c4c652/sss.md
19:10:35 <needbrrrrrrr90> for the curious
23:41:55 <needbrrrrrrr90> Could stratum SS be modified to involve three parties instead of two parties and a local node?
23:42:18 <needbrrrrrrr90> So. Right now, a significant hindrance to adoption of stratum SS appears to be the need to run a full node
23:42:38 <needbrrrrrrr90> Is it possible to 'remote out' the node requirement, while still allowing pool connection?
23:43:12 <needbrrrrrrr90> So, you can utilize any one of a number of independent full nodes to mine with stratum SS, basically splitting the attack surface even further
23:43:19 <needbrrrrrrr90> I imagine there's some latency concerns