.merge+ 7099 7086

Added

.merge+ 7098

...

I've got something for your mind, your body and your soul: monero-project/monero #7172

Hopefully this fixes the CI.

Do you think that you are too smart to be in a cult? Then I would encourage you to look

Do you think that you are too smart to be in a cult? Then I would encourage you to look

into how any other cult works / worked. They aren't populated by stupid people.

Aum Shinrikyo was almost exclusively university professors and graduates. For Pete's sake - they had the know-how and means to make WMDs.

As to Monero, I would encourage you to look at Jonestown mass-suicide. You know why Jones killed them all?

Because he was afraid he is loosing control over them. People like that will burn everything to the ground around them rather than give up control.

Being smart doesn't make you immune to being in a cult. This is the most valuable lesson Monero taught me.

tvomme tries to push the XMR price down to buy more :)

tvonme: u r talking about psychopats...not so many here ;)

What do people think about killing the p2p public node system ? It seemed like a good idea at hte time, but it got us --no-sync and the list is just riddled with the usual polluters.

I'm not a big fan of the idea. Not having to look for a public node is a huge UX improvements IMO

Only for people who want to shoot themselves in the foot though.

I, OTOH, think everyone should run their own node.

I mean I guess it comes down to whether it can be made reliable or not

if it's reliable it's a great feature, if it's not it's not.

having both simple and bootstrap maybe seems a little redundant. what if simple mode were replaced by bootstrap+no sync? Then your logic for connecting to other nodes stays in the daemon and the GUI wallet doesn't have to deal with it.

the logic does stay in the daemon already

simple mode = --bootstrap-daemon-address auto --no-sync

I'm only going by the documentation but the guide I am looking at rn says simple mode does not run a local node

simple mode (bootstrap) = --bootstrap-daemon-address auto

perhaps the docs are dated github.com/monero-ecosystem/monero-…e.md#about-the-simplebootstrap-mode

it runs a local node, you just don’t download the blockchain

ok I believe you, I'm just saying that's not what the docs say

Lyza: The guide is a bit outdated probably, yes. I haven't much time to take care of it at the moment. Could you open an issue on the repo?

hello, what will be fixed or what are the improvements for 17.1.8?

<ErCiccione[m]> sure thing

thanks

Moneromooo are you here? I've got a question about this commit: monero-project/monero 2899379#diff-eb68bc70cb6aeb0af3d4d6ebb9cfc2512547dc8590ae4b78f427dfe255b6e1c0

What is that question ?

It's about the execution path of a rpc_access_data json request.

I'm not the best programmer, so I'm going to try to explain.

I see in that code, only when the json rpc is called, as apposed to the cli, the json_rpc_request function is called.

I think it is intended for this code to run: github.com/monero-project/monero/bl…a/src/rpc/core_rpc_server.cpp#L3197

But in practice, I don't think it can ever be called.

The logic for rpc payments requires that the rpc server be started in restricted mode.

But, rpc_access_data is an rpc call that is restricted itself: github.com/monero-project/monero/bl…188a/src/rpc/core_rpc_server.h#L184

So there is no way in which the previously mentioned code path can ever run.

I think you're correct.

Is there a reason we can't have rpc_access_data, be unrestricted?

The call itself, shouldn't allow people to modify their own balance, only view everyone's balance.

It would reveal client ID's to the world, but I don't think that is a security issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's none of the business of anyone else, really.

It should be able to be run on the restricted port, to read what's on the other one. But atm IIRC two servers are started, rather than a server listening on two ports. So that should be changed first.

Ok, I hadn't realized there was that option.

I just tried using --rpc-restricted-bind-port

I first tied a jsonrpc call using sync_info i tried the restricted-bind-port, I got method not found as expected.

Then I tried the same jsonrpc call for the unrestricted port 28081 in this case, and I was able to receive data back.

I repated the same process for 'rpc_access_data', but I'm getting an error for the unrestricted port 28081. error code: 0

When I said "It should be able to be run on the restricted port" I meant "ideally it should be..."

ie, for it to work properly, there should be either one single server for the two ports, or some data sharing.

This is not currently the case.

ok, do you mind if I document this and the conversation in github issues?

Feel free.