01:57:48 <anonimal> BE EXCELLENT TO EACH OTHER is a fantastic phrase to live by! I try everyday to do that better. Great to see that in /topic
01:59:37 <sarang> It's a nice version of Wheaton's Law
01:59:54 <sarang> Seems to cover most of the important stuff :)
02:02:50 <anonimal> :)  (I can't help but think of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure too)
08:28:17 <Inge-> we are so old anonimal
11:30:41 <TheCharlatan> Isthmus do you have statistics on unlock_time usage and values handy somewhere?
14:13:12 <suraeNoether> Cankerwort: I *think* it was the big bad and now I am running a few more tests before data collection. Push coming later today
14:49:50 <sarang> Hello all
14:50:04 <sarang> Finishing up some tx proof tests today
14:57:24 <sarang> I heard from OSTIF just now that Teserakt is again available for a CLSAG math+code review
14:59:26 <sarang> moneromooo had already put together a branch for it (cleaned-up code is in my branch, ready for review+merge into that branch)
14:59:38 <sarang> and sgp_ had earlier talked about the idea of an audit workgroup
14:59:46 <sarang> to increase transparency and neutrality around the process
15:01:51 <sarang> It'd be nice to get additional review of the CLSAG code before sending it off for external review, to catch any initial bugs or errors
15:02:03 <sgp_> I need to follow up with those who offered to help
15:02:04 <sarang> UkoeHB_ already made some great suggestions that have been incorporated into my branch
15:02:13 <sarang> would be great to get additional eyes
15:39:16 <gingeropolous> is CLSAG somehow a precursor to higher magnitude stuff like tryptich etc? or is tryptich so far out that CLSAG moves the needle enough ?
15:40:23 <sarang> They aren't related or compatible
15:42:52 <fullmetalScience> sarang, could you correct me on this formula for fee calculation please? (1.9/10) x (300/300) x 0.002 x 0.2 x 1 x 1.8kB <=== in current conditions of ~1.9 XMR block reward and ~1.8 kB per typical tx and low priority (1)
15:45:20 <sarang> I cannot correct you, because I don't know if it's right or not :)
15:47:39 <fullmetalScience> Hehe okay :) Maybe I can find it in zero to Monero. Don't really feel like deriving it from the code.
15:48:18 <sarang> I remember finding it at one point, but it's been a while, sorry
15:48:33 <sarang> I'd have to do the same kind of digging around
15:48:37 <sarang> If you find it, please paste here
15:48:58 <moneromooo> Blockchain::get_dynamic_base_fee
15:50:43 <fullmetalScience> Went there, but since C++ isn' my native language ^^ it's always a bit stressful to pick the pieces together from there.
15:51:02 <fullmetalScience> Sure, once I got the correct one & verified, I'll confirm it here.
15:52:47 <fullmetalScience> Related, but different: The other day I brought up the correlation between fees and XMR market value. UkoeHB_ brought up that is was important *not* to scale with purchasing power since spam attacks get more valuable the higher XMR's value.
15:54:31 <fullmetalScience> That's where we left off more or less. My point however would be that we already "scaled" according to pruchasing power to a certain extent (since cost is usually in fiat the current fee scheme was probably already taking into account the fiat value back when it was established (?))
15:55:48 <fullmetalScience> The objective of the discussion would be closing in on an answer to: "Could we reduce fees if XMR did 10x or 100x? If so, how much?"
16:26:53 <fullmetalScience> I'll continue with the formula topic. I'm still eager to get comments on fees-vs-valuation, so if there's anything to add, sarang or others ...
16:27:59 <fullmetalScience> Zero to Monero states one assumption that I cannot find a source for: "First we say the base dynamic fee is 0.0004/kB"
16:31:14 <fullmetalScience> For this statement it references a StackExchange article about Monero's history (https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/475/monero-inception-and-history-how-did-monero-get-started-what-are-its-origins-a/476#476), but in it I cannot find any reference to tx fees.
16:40:10 <fullmetalScience> "0.002 x (60/300) x 4" as mentioned in Mastering Monero equals that value 0.0004
16:41:43 <mfoolb> 0.002 x 0.2 x 4 = 0.0004? sure/
16:43:12 <fullmetalScience> mfoolb: According to the book, the 4 stands for "normal priority" and "low priority" would be 1. So we'd need to use a 1 instead of a 4 there. Sorry for the confusion.
16:43:28 <mfoolb> fullmetalScience: ok
16:51:14 <suraeNoether> Narrator: It was not the Big Bad Bug
16:51:22 <suraeNoether> but it sure as hell was hiding it
16:54:04 <fullmetalScience> Everything superfluous cancelled out, the min tx fee per kB would just be current block reward devided by 100000 (= 0.00001933). That would work if my average tx's were roughly 1.27 kB in size. moneromooo: Are you very sure about the 1.8 kB?
16:59:08 <moneromooo> No, might be 1.9 or so. Look at a block explorer, 1->2 txes are fairly common.
16:59:27 <suraeNoether> iirc the median is like 1.6 in and 1.8 out
17:00:11 <moneromooo> We're on about the size of a 1->2 tx.
17:01:37 <fullmetalScience> Withdrawing my statement about reward/100000. Been looking at too many numbers and I guess the formula is just not correct any more. Will take a break.
17:29:29 <UkoeHB_> ZtM is out of date, the second edition has current fee formula. I'll have to check that reference
17:31:03 <UkoeHB_> Guess he's gone
17:42:21 <UkoeHB_> Also afaik the fee scheme does not consider fiat, or at least the current one does not.
17:42:58 <UkoeHB_> Minimum fee is just enough to add 1% to the penalty free zone
17:43:23 <UkoeHB_> 1% above*
17:54:32 <sarang> Additional WIP on updated transaction proofs; comments welcome: https://github.com/SarangNoether/monero/tree/txproof
21:42:31 <UkoeHB_> the reference in my footnote goes here https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/1869 seems legit