08:58:31 <fluffypony> https://github.com/rotki/rotki/issues/825
08:58:41 <fluffypony> Rotki is a portfolio tracking tool
08:58:48 <fluffypony> I'm wondering what native Monero integration would look like
08:59:35 <fluffypony> I don't think it's feasible for people to keep RPC wallets open for every Monero wallet they have
08:59:56 <fluffypony> but maybe using something like the light wallet scanner
09:00:31 <fluffypony> might end up being quite a bit more complex in the long run, but RPC wallet integration is easy out the gate
13:08:17 <Osiris1> someone here?
13:11:34 <rbrunner> Depends. Who wants to know?
13:12:38 <Osiris1> anyway isn't about monero is about aeon
13:13:02 <Osiris1> i want to send from cli wallet and get this ? Error: internal error:bad nonrct distribution size: 0
13:13:06 <rbrunner> Wow. But quite similar, no?
13:13:09 <Osiris1> yep
13:13:31 <Osiris1> and after this
13:13:39 <Osiris1> Error: There was an error,wich could mean the node may be trying to get you to retry creating a transaction ,and zero in wich outputs you own. Or it could be a bona fide error.It may be prudent to disconnect from this node,and not try to send a transaction immediately.Alternatively,connect to another node so the original node cannot corelate information.
13:14:09 <Osiris1> i didn't opened the wallet in years...
13:14:20 <Osiris1> balance is there but cant sent
13:14:51 <rbrunner> Not sure, but indeed sounds somehow like a but (or at least a problem) with very old outputs
13:15:08 <rbrunner> *bug
13:15:24 <Osiris1> and what i can do ?:)
13:16:22 <rbrunner> Might be that only a Aeon dev can answer this, stoffu if you can catch them. The coin might have a difference in this regard from Monero.
13:16:34 <Osiris1> thank you
14:39:32 <jwinterm> Osiris1: I think you need to delete your wallet binary file
14:39:37 <jwinterm> and maybe also nuke chain data
14:41:11 <jwinterm> or maybe see the last few comments in this thread https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/4718
15:15:03 <Osiris1> jwinterm fixed remote node not have updates in year just synced to my own chain and all work like charm
15:15:54 <Osiris1> thank you anyway!
20:11:10 <dEBRUYNE> I wrote a message for the mailing list, please review:
20:11:11 <dEBRUYNE> https://pastebin.com/L3ZsA3Sx
20:12:44 <moneromooo> > regarding the scheduled network upgraded
20:12:54 <moneromooo> The last d seems wrong
20:13:11 <dEBRUYNE> ty
20:13:14 <moneromooo> Same sentence: posted on our blog that contains
20:13:26 <moneromooo> I'd say "on our blog containing"
20:13:49 <moneromooo> The current phrasing is correct, but it makes it sound like the blog, rather than the particular article, contains the thing.
20:14:04 <moneromooo> Which might be the case, but I suspect the opposite is meant.
20:14:56 <moneromooo> "more elaborate information" sounds weird, but I get what it means. Maybe more in-depth. More elaborate sounds... I dunno, more baroque. Maybe it's just me though :)
20:16:50 <dEBRUYNE> moneromooo: I've changed the sentence to:
20:16:51 <dEBRUYNE> 'Note that an informational post regarding the scheduled network upgrade has been posted on our blog containing more in-depth information for users and miners.'
20:17:38 <moneromooo> It does seem less artificial to me, yes.
20:29:39 <dEBRUYNE> Updated with mooo's comments -> https://pastebin.com/G5FaU2QB
23:38:34 <gingeropolous> i ponder if this would suffice: "To be sufficiently prepared, all participants in the Monero ecosystem should run CLI 0.17 ..."
23:40:01 <gingeropolous> this might be style, " a new ring signature construction, namely CLSAG, " ... i interpret the "namely" as meaning one in particular.
23:40:13 <gingeropolous> here, i think it should read " a new ring signature construction, called CLSAG, "
23:40:45 <gingeropolous> but their might be specifics under the hood where CLSAG is one of many new ring sig constructions? I mean, there are many new ones, but ther'es only one in the code.
23:40:50 <gingeropolous> who wants a semantic sandwhich
23:45:55 <gingeropolous> "with rigorous security" seems superfluous.
23:51:46 <sarang> FWIW it's almost certain that MLSAG inherits the security guarantees of CLSAG, but the proofs weren't done for it
23:52:07 <sarang> And yes, CLSAG will be the only ring signature construction permitted for new transactions after the upgrade height
23:53:47 <moneromooo> (except ring signatures for pre-rct outputs)
23:55:27 <sarang> True :)
23:56:10 <sarang> "MLSAG signatures shan't be allowed" then