could be custom exchanges or trading platforms

10%? unlikely but I could be wrong

are they not still supported in rpc wallet?

I don't think so. I might have forgot something though.

As long as the uPID flag is still available for tx_extra, what changes for ePIDs moving out of extra?

less 'half-baked'

Sorry, that was vague. More precisely: Since height 1978433 just over 8% of transactions have contain a tx_extra item starting with `022100`

For example, as this recent transaction with the plaintext payment ID "Averagejoe" xmrchain.net/search?value=02F4101C3…56DFF4BB34D4D0B81EFB143C67CD75F2F81

Oh @sarang good point I was making an assumption about implementation. I rescind that for now.

OK. I guess I was wrong then. People really do suck more than I expected. That was my condition for being OK with starting parsing extra and rejecting stuff :/

I mean, you really have to try hard to fuck up here given support was removed. They had to write special code that gets it wrong...

Unless I really did forget somehting in RPC :)

Which I don't see looking at it now.

Perhaps the next upgrade is the time to parse

Maybe. Though if people actually wrote custom code to fuck it up, they'll easily find another way.

Perhaps

Sadly, the people writing custom code (devs) are probably not the same people (end users) whose data is ending up stored in plaintext, and whose transactions are heuristically traceable

I'm frustrated with the former (devs who should know better) but trying to not project that onto the users who are probably clueless that their Monero transactions indistinguishable from others.

(also, we really tend to assume the worst about these developers who aren't 1000% up to speed on protocol nuances and subtle statistical information leaks. Probably not all of them miss these updates out of malice or disdain)

Yes I can't imagine more than 10 people on this planet have a deep understanding of tx

Jesus I spent so many hours trying to figure it all out lol

There is still stuff in wallet2.cpp I dont know much about (input selection mostly)

is it better to say 'encrypted payment ID' or 'encoded payment ID'?

\join #monero

Isthmus this could be interesting for your students: reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/f5d3k3…ea_pitch_gpuaccelerated_wallet_sync Not sure if anyone is working it at the moment

Sup guys, Andrey from Cointelegraph here. I was wondering if any of you heard of the Incognito project. incognito.org/c/tech/18

Wanted to write an article about them, but just wanted to double check that it's not a scam or snake oil

To me they seem rather legit

shvandrew: did you look into their premine?

also this is not the right channel for this, no one here is familiar with it

or I would be surprised if someone here is familiar with it

shvandrew: “For the current moment, the team controls 80%+ of the token supply, around 6-7 million tokens of the 8 million supply currently in circulation.”

seems like a scam to me :)

[keybase] <kaylasu>: yikes

selsta yes distribution is one of the factors that I'd like to investigate, though honestly at this point no-premine coins are hard to find. But thanks for the feedback

Wait. If it's hard to find non scams, your solution is to redefine what is a scam ?

Rip

[keybase] <kaylasu>: apparently xmr didnt have premine tho

I would consider every project a scam until proven otherwise these days

80% premine is a scam no matter how you butter your bread

[keybase] <kaylasu>: make it 99.99%

And I say that as someone who doesn't mind premines as long as small and honestly disclosed :)

From what I've seen the premine is supposed to be a small part of the eventual supply, and it was disclosed. I'm afraid it's the industry itself that redefined scams with the whole ICO phenomenon, which is why I haven't yet focused on that. I'm mostly concerned about the actual technology for now and whether it works

Scammers do not get to define what a scam is.

And journalists ought not slip the dirt under the carpet.

This is not a comment on incognito, I don't know about it. Just a comment about what you said.

shvandrew, they appear to use the same privacy technology as monero, essentially, ring signatures with confidential txs

shvandrew: Incognito does not seem to solve any of the issues they claim to address, most importantly that users will still buy tainted coins

Re-reading, I was a bit harsh, sorry, since "distribution is one of the factors that I'd like to investigate", so it's not swept under the carpet.

shvandrew: Also regarding your latest article, fireice has never been a monero core member

not sure how you came to that conclusion, he barely ever contributed to the project

o_O

I lurked on Reddit in 2017 and he was pretty active, kind of had this wrong impression form in my mind. But yes we'll correct that.

see here: github.com/monero-project/monero/pu…Apr+author%3Afireice-uk+is%3Aclosed

he contributed 3 PRs, he had good insight in the past but these days he is just a troll

Please avoid personal attacks in this channel

Sarang, I believe the designation of fireice as a troll at this point is more fact than an attack

The guy quite literally pays people to spam /r/Monero (or did in the past)

At what point do you decide that good faith has been violated, and a person can actually be called out for what they are?

I'd like this channel to remain about research, discussed professionally

While I agree, I think categorizing a factual statement about someone as an attack is a step too far.

sorry for off topic

Just food for thought.

I do agree that it's off topic

At this point, it's not attack, it's defence ^_^

[keybase] <seddd>: When has good faith been violated? When an attempted murder on a community member is committed

I try to take "be excellent to each other" (from the channel topic) seriously

But again, please take this kind of discussion elsewhere

[keybase] <seddd>: needbrrrrrrr90 go troll somewhere else.

This was not trolling. It was an unwelcome statement of fact.

Anyway, I ask that people keep the channel topics about research, and act professionally

I find it very hard to let go of stuff I find less than honest. Sorry.

[keybase] <seddd>: What was less than honest?

[keybase] <seddd>: sarang: I apologize, I can only be in here and the general chat atm

[keybase] <kaylasu>: #general is the one from keybase (which cannot be removed nor renamed), maybe @surae would like to open the other channels #monero #monero-community [...] so could have them over here too

[keybase] <kaylasu>: (bridges currently ready for #monero, #monero-community, #monero-dev, #monero-markets, #monero-otc, #monero-pow, #monero-research-lab which currently only the latter is open on the keybase team "monerocommunity")

[keybase] <seddd>: Mb. I'm here for research, I really don't know shit about this fireice person, couldn't give two fucks. Hope everything works out. Here to work, not fuck about with community trolls who get off on sewing discord

If you're going to stay in this channel, please stay civil

[keybase] <seddd>: Right, maybe that was too curt. I'm not here for anything but research. If your community doesn't want me here, I have no interest in offering help, and will leave now.

I didn't mean to imply that you should leave seddd

only that I would personally appreciate that people in this channel treat everyone civilly and with respect

generally that's not a problem

Anyway, here's an interesting research topic that I came across

The Zcoin folks came up with a clever way to modify Groth one-of-many proofs in a hierarchical way

To reduce prover (and in some cases, verifier) complexity at the cost of space

It's a clever approach, and I wonder if/how it could apply to something like Triptych, which uses Groth proofs

Looks like the authors haven't posted their work as an IACR preprint yet

[keybase] <seddd>: Gives me time to re-read the Triptych paper in preparation :)

The authors sent me an advance copy of the hierarchical paper as a courtesy, but I mistakenly thought they had also posted it publicly

I'll be sure to post a link when it appears on IACR

so this could result in Triptych 3? :D

Heh

It's not clear to me if there would be practical verifier improvements to offset the size costs

The prover benefits might extend to a Triptych-style construction, but that doesn't seem like a good tradeoff

since proving is a one-time operation

Regardless, it's a really clever construction, and it's neat to see options for being able to alter the size/time tradeoffs for different applications

btw am not here to ask for money from xmr community. I want nothing more than collaboration

Research loves collaboration!

<3

so are both Triptych(1,2) and CLSAG being considered for signing protocols in Monero?

CLSAG is short term, triptych (and others) are long term

Triptych (etc) require a bunch of development effort, and not all design questions are necessarily solved

ok, that makes sense. saw the line about further research on Triptych2. thanks UkoeHB_