00:55:10 <UkoeHB_> Not currently
01:31:37 <Henry151> so what's the monero position/situation regarding address reuse?
01:32:17 <Henry151> i.e. can i always use the same monero address when withdrawaing monero from a marketplace to my local monero wallet?
01:32:27 <Henry151> or should i be making a new address for each time?
01:43:58 <moneromooo> If it's from an account, they know it's you anyway. If something like morphtoken, they don't, so subaddresses help there.
02:58:54 <RowanSkye> good day monero people
03:05:45 <UkoeHB_> Hi
08:22:54 <Guest69319> Hello. I'm new here. Can I ask which channels that I can find updates from the dev team? Thanks
08:34:14 <dEBRUYNE> Easiest is probably to keep an eye on the website (for blog posts and community, research, and dev meeting logs)
08:34:24 <dEBRUYNE> As well as following the Monero reddit (r/monero)
08:34:44 <d4ndo[m]> #monero-dev
08:35:03 <d4ndo[m]> But they don't speak english on that channel
08:36:44 <d4ndo[m]> But you can try google translate C/C++ to english.
10:02:11 <duso> cat .c | google translate >> windows source code
10:06:05 <d4ndo[m]> cat linux.c | google-translate-english | google-translate-arabic >> windows.c
15:15:50 <vtnerd> dandelion++ does not use a hamilton circuit
15:16:24 <vtnerd> it should take around 10 hops, and the delay is processing time + network latency between each hop
15:17:53 <vtnerd> 2-3 seconds would be a more realistic over-estimate
15:18:41 <vtnerd> in most cases I would expect less than that, unless someone "black holes" the tx
15:19:48 <vtnerd> and if nodes aren't running it, the average number of hops will decrease because it gets sent immediately
17:04:41 <visualshock> Is it normal that monero-blockchain-mark-spent-outputs.exe contains Win32/Uwamson.A!ml?
17:06:38 <selsta> Some AV flag monero related software.
17:06:44 <selsta> so yes
17:10:48 <moneromooo> If it include a virus db, I'd check what this is. If it's "cryptocurrency miner", it's OK. If it's "Windows Word worm", probably not.
17:43:35 <micah> can you import key_images via the gui
17:43:36 <micah> ?
18:44:35 <selsta> micah: yes
18:47:03 <micah> selsta: i couldn't find out where, how do I do that?
18:48:07 <selsta> see import / export key images button https://usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/7PSq11hV/Screenshot%202020-04-23%20at%2020.47.54.png
18:56:12 <sarah_c0nn0r> Hey everyone, I created the Ultranet and I’m trying to grow it into a private, censorship-resistant marketplace that can actually compete with the likes of the platform oligarchy (Amazon, Alibaba, etc…). My problem is I’ve been trying to find someone who can help me with a few engineering tasks like redoing the front-end, creating a block
18:56:12 <sarah_c0nn0r> explorer, and doing some work on the underlying blockchain code, but I don’t have strong connections in the community and I’m only able to pay people in Bitcoin or Ultra for their work. I’m posting here because it looks like you all have been around the block and might be able to help. Would it be difficult to recommend someone who can help
18:56:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> me with various coding tasks who would be willing to accept Bitcoin or Ultra for their work? Thanks in advance, and sorry if this post is off-topic. This is the website for the project by the way: https://ultranet.one and this is the code-base (front-end is written using Angular, blockchain is written from-scratch in Go):
18:56:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> https://github.com/sarahc0nn0r/ultranet
18:56:39 <sarah_c0nn0r> *Or Monero of course
19:06:06 <micah> selsta: i dont have that ... that looks like you are under 'send'?
19:06:52 <selsta> micah: did you open a view only wallet?
19:07:19 <selsta> I think in your version it is only visible when opening a view only wallet
19:07:21 <micah> selsta: no... is that viewable in view-only?
19:07:25 <micah> ok, that explains it!
19:07:40 <selsta> we are in the process of improving it
19:07:48 <micah> great, thanks
19:20:00 <jwinterm> sarah_c0nn0r, why do you need your own shitcoin to run your marketplace?
19:21:51 <jwinterm> it sounds like openbazaar plus a shitcoin
19:22:15 <jwinterm> did you literally just fork openbazaar?
19:22:22 <yanmaani> No, it's that plus garbage incentives.
19:22:32 <yanmaani> As in, it oesn't even have escrow
19:22:51 <yanmaani> just shows people if txn fees paid > money in flight
19:23:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm yanmaani Just to clarify, I don't think Ultra is a shitcoin-- I'm just an engineer like you trying to make things better in the world. I genuinely believe if you took the time to learn about the project you would see that, but I respect your skepticism regardless.
19:23:35 <jwinterm> so why does the market require its own token?
19:23:36 <yanmaani> No, I did take the time to learn about the project
19:23:39 <jwinterm> if you could, succinctly
19:23:42 <yanmaani> You posted a whitepaper etc
19:24:57 <sarah_c0nn0r> To answer your question, the marketplace is censorship-resistant and pseudo-anonymous and the only way to achieve that was to create a new type of blockchain, which required its own cryptocurrency. I talk about this in detail in one of my posts on why I didn't implement the project on Ethereum for example:
19:24:57 <sarah_c0nn0r> https://ultranet.one/an-honest-criticism-of-smart-contract-platforms/
19:25:51 <sarah_c0nn0r> Your question it seems is similar to asking "why didn't Monero just add privacy features to Bitcoin instead of launching a new currency"
19:25:56 <jwinterm> so every darknet marketplace isn't censorship-resistant or pseudo-anonymous?
19:26:03 <jwinterm> or openbazaar the same?
19:26:30 <jwinterm> no, my question is related to the fact that there are plenty of censorship-resistant and pseudononymous marketplaces now
19:26:46 <yanmaani> yeah but they're not decentralized
19:26:58 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm Not at all; in fact it is a big problem for them that things continuously get shut down. Openbazaar is run by a centralized company that censors everything through controlling the only search engine in the app
19:28:38 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm As far as I'm aware everything either censors listings or gets shut down repeatedly, losing all reputation in the process. But if you're aware of something I'm not, I of course want to learn/discuss.
19:29:26 <jwinterm> ok, I still don't understand why it requires an ICO and its own token
19:29:39 <yanmaani> because that's how it done
19:29:44 <yanmaani> why don't you post the whitepaper sarah_c0nn0r ?
19:29:50 <jwinterm> I am looking at it
19:30:34 <jwinterm> so far it just seems like an elaborate scheme to separate fools from their bitcoin
19:30:44 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm Of course and I understand your skepticism. The answer is technical and is related to implementing a censorship-resistant way to store listings, which I refer to as a "block pool" in the paper and in a post on the topic. Basically, implementing the block pool on an existing smart contract platform or using an existing cryptocurrency like
19:30:45 <sarah_c0nn0r> Bitcoin wasn't possible.
19:30:48 <kinghat[m]> whats with all the questions, jwinterm? what are ya a fn cop?
19:30:59 <jwinterm> no but I play one on tv
19:31:07 <sarah_c0nn0r> Both the smart contract post I linked earlier and this post on the block pool discuss it:
19:31:16 <sarah_c0nn0r> Smart contract post: https://ultranet.one/an-honest-criticism-of-smart-contract-platforms/
19:31:22 <kinghat[m]> prolly enjoy 🍍 on ya 🍩s too
19:31:37 <sarah_c0nn0r> Block pool post: https://ultranet.one/block-chains-vs-block-pools-a-new-technology-that-can-power-a-decentralized-marketplace-and-social-network/
19:31:42 <jwinterm> how much of total supply you keeping for yourself from ICO sarah_c0nn0r ?
19:31:46 <jwinterm> just out of curiousity
19:32:00 <jwinterm> and since it's not easily available to see on website or whitepaper
19:32:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> kinghat[m] I appreciate the skepticism. It's healthy and honestly his questions are good one. I thought about them a lot when developing the system.
19:32:43 <yanmaani> Are you still doing the 20% "discount"?
19:32:43 <kinghat[m]> 👀
19:33:28 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm I've just been mining it since I launched it in February. It mines ~288 Ultra per day but people started joining me after a few days so I haven't even gotten the full amount this entire time. Now there are over a hundred people mining it so I get very little
19:36:03 <sarah_c0nn0r> yanmaani You mean showing artificially higher prices before someone creates an account and then lower prices after? Yes but only because nobody else has complained and I'm too lazy to remove it.
19:36:05 <jwinterm> how are you selling it then?
19:37:25 <sarah_c0nn0r> In the app you can either mine Ultra or burn Bitcoin through a decentralized exchange mechanism to get it (like an atomic swap). The swap only takes a few minutes and it "feels" smooth like depositing into a normal exchange and trading it.
19:38:59 <sarah_c0nn0r> This is a post on how that swap mechanism works. Of course it's also covered in the paper in detail: https://ultranet.one/the-decentralized-bitcoin-exchange-mechanism-powering-the-first-blockchain-marketplace
19:40:20 <jwinterm> what's your burn address?
19:41:22 <jwinterm> sarah_c0nn0r, ^
19:43:59 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm It's in the codebase somewhere I don't have it on-hand: https://github.com/sarahc0nn0r/ultranet It's just a random address that the protocol uses to do the swap
19:44:16 <jwinterm> just a random address?
19:44:28 <jwinterm> why wouldn't you use something provably unspendable?
19:44:44 <jwinterm> unless you're a scammer?
19:46:13 <yanmaani> too stupid to be a scammer
19:46:25 <kinghat[m]> 🤫
19:46:37 <sarah_c0nn0r> I don't really know what you mean. The burn address being unspendable doesn't affect the economics of the protocol. That being said, it's easy to use a "nothing up my sleeves" number in any case
19:47:11 <jwinterm> because if you can spend them they're not really "burned" are they?
19:47:28 <jwinterm> are you not aware of how "burn" addresses are supposed to work?
19:48:22 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm yanmaani I'm not sure where the animosity is coming from. I came here in good faith to ask for someone to help me with my project that I've been working very hard on. If you don't want to help or if you want to ask logical questions that's fine, but saying things like "too stupid to be a scammer" seems not only counterproductive, but I
19:48:22 <sarah_c0nn0r> would also expect more from this community with regard to embracing new ideas, and I think others do too
19:48:37 <jwinterm> what's the address?
19:48:47 <yanmaani> ahahaha
19:48:49 <yanmaani> man
19:48:55 <yanmaani> you write a protocol
19:49:06 <yanmaani> to sell drugs, on the darknet
19:49:08 <sarah_c0nn0r> It's in the code. I'll find it for you...
19:49:11 <yanmaani> and it fails at its stated purpose
19:49:31 <yanmaani> what more is there to say? there isn't even any escrow mechanism, just "number go up" gibberish
19:49:46 <yanmaani> also the txn fees are sky high
19:49:49 <wizardsmoke> Gotta be careful with 'the monero community' cult. Quick to attack anytime they feel threatened.
19:49:52 <sarah_c0nn0r> yanmaani How do you know it's failed? It launched in February and has over a hundred miners right now...
19:50:08 <yanmaani> ove a hundred, bravo
19:50:47 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm This is the burn address FYI since you asked: https://github.com/sarahc0nn0r/ultranet/blob/6c78e218111a2cb09d129028134f3e8b041b1ab0/backend/lib/constants.go#L458
19:50:53 <yanmaani> look I already explained this to you - sellers go where the customers are, not the other way around. Of the things that customers deeply prioritize, cryptotoken gibberish is not one of them
19:51:20 <yanmaani> this is literally less secure than silk road
19:51:32 <asymptotically> how's it the first decentralised&private market? what about that other one?
19:51:34 <asymptotically> openbazaar
19:51:45 <sarah_c0nn0r> yanmaani I get it: you're skeptical. It's natural to be so. I'm just asking you in good faith for a little kindness. I worked really hard on this thing, and I know if you worked hard on something you'd want the same
19:51:51 <jwinterm> sucked up half a btc so far
19:51:57 <yanmaani> there's not even any need for the product, is hte problem
19:52:03 <yanmaani> If you don't have an escrow mechanism or anything
19:52:04 <jwinterm> not so great for amount of work you put into it probably
19:52:08 <jwinterm> gl scammer
19:52:08 <yanmaani> then why bother with the block pool?
19:52:11 <yanmaani> ^
19:52:20 <jwinterm> just a random address lmao
19:52:21 <sarah_c0nn0r> asymptotically Good question. Openbazaar is not only not decentralized, but they censor all listings by controlling the only search engine usable in the app
19:52:40 <yanmaani> You could just, like, post "I'm selling 5kg of heroin, send bitcoins here, FE only" to alt.drugs.illegal
19:52:54 <asymptotically> sarah_c0nn0r: hmm i thought they censored the default search provider, but anyone could run one and not censor anything
19:52:57 <yanmaani> much cheaper, less transaction fees, and no strange cryptotoens involved
19:53:06 <sarah_c0nn0r> asymptotically In contrast, the Ultranet stores a copy of all listings on all nodes in a "block pool" data structure, and searches over listings are done locally
19:53:30 <yanmaani> Just like a newsreader would; just set it to alt.drugs.illegal and fire away
19:53:35 <jwinterm> you are either an idiot or a scammer sarah_c0nn0r
19:53:44 <jwinterm> trying to pass that off as a "burn address"
19:53:51 <sarah_c0nn0r> asymptotically This article goes into detail on it if you're curious: https://ultranet.one/block-chains-vs-block-pools-a-new-technology-that-can-power-a-decentralized-marketplace-and-social-network/
19:53:51 <jwinterm> I'll lean scammer, but yanmaani disagrees
19:54:00 <jwinterm> .ban sarah_c0nn0r
19:54:20 <jwinterm> also don't vote manipulate on /r/cryptocurrency again or we'll blacklist your shitcoin
19:55:05 <asymptotically> sarah_c0nn0r: is the block pool like bitmessage's big message storage blob?
19:56:08 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm You're entitled to your opinion even if I disagree. Again I understand you're skepticism and appreciate you being civil about it.
19:56:23 <yanmaani> Why don't you do anything to address it, sarah_c0nn0r?
19:56:27 <jwinterm> this is what a burn address looks like: https://allprivatekeys.com/btc/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr
19:56:34 <jwinterm> your address looks like a scam
19:56:36 <yanmaani> I mean it seems like there has to be some advantage to Usenet, no
19:56:55 <sarah_c0nn0r> asymptotically I'm not familiar with that but it could be similar. When I looked at BitMessage IIRC it was storing the messages in the blockchain but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.
19:58:21 <sarah_c0nn0r> yanmaani Regarding your points, yes I think having escrow might be necessary. But the experiment is that if you can get reputation right and if you don't get shut down constantly that you might be able to build a better user experience without it. Of course I understand your skepticism, but it seems worthwhile to start it like this and add it later
19:58:22 <sarah_c0nn0r> if it turns out it's needed.
19:58:40 <yanmaani> So what advantages does this offer compared to Usenet?
19:58:47 <jwinterm> how long you gonna wait until you move the btc out of the "burn" address?
20:00:22 <azy> busted
20:00:50 <jwinterm> ULTRAbusted
20:01:31 <yanmaani> Oh wait, that was a bitcoin address?
20:01:36 <sarah_c0nn0r> yanmaani It has reviews and reputation, as well as a UX that is geared toward processing orders (e.g. ability to cancel, confirm, refund, etc). And it's fully-decentralized in such a way that all the data is preserved as long as a single node somewhere in the world is running the software, though I understand Usenet tries to be similar there.
20:01:47 <yanmaani> OK yeah then it's a scam. And that explains the hubristic overconfidence too
20:02:01 <yanmaani> So does Usenet, again
20:02:09 <jwinterm> yes, he is purportedly offering a "burn" mechanism to get ULTRA
20:02:12 <hyc> reputation doesn't mean much. plenty of exchanges and markets built up a reputation over 2 or more years and still exit-scammed
20:02:16 <jwinterm> but it's just a regular btc address
20:02:22 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm Again, it's easy to change and doesn't affect the economics of the system. It seems you're overfixating on an implementation detail
20:02:26 <jwinterm> clearly scammer more than idiot
20:02:40 <jwinterm> using the word "burn" is a scam
20:02:46 <yanmaani> hyc: The idea is that you measure cumulative transaction fees
20:02:46 <jwinterm> sorry, I fixate on scams
20:02:51 <yanmaani> and then just display this in the UI
20:03:22 <sarah_c0nn0r> hyc there's no way to exit scam the Ultranet; everybody custodies everything themselves because it's fully-decentralized
20:03:24 <yanmaani> and the users (who are all going to be drug addicts) are expected to use this information to reason about whether their counterparty is trustworthy
20:03:28 <yanmaani> DYOR :^)
20:03:55 <sarah_c0nn0r> hyc Think of it like Bitcoin only it can handle posting of listings and processing of orders not just basic transactions
20:04:38 <yanmaani> except for the bit where the consensus mechanism is snake oil, sure
20:05:17 <sarah_c0nn0r> yanmaani that's why it's completely opensource so you can verify that it isn't (as can anyone)
20:05:25 <sarah_c0nn0r> https://github.com/sarahc0nn0r/ultranet
20:06:29 <sarah_c0nn0r> It uses proof of work as consensus with modifications to support the storage of listings, among other things, without bloating the blockchain. Honestly, I think you would find it very interesting if you were to read more about it:
20:06:30 <sarah_c0nn0r> https://ultranet.one/block-chains-vs-block-pools-a-new-technology-that-can-power-a-decentralized-marketplace-and-social-network/
20:08:16 <yanmaani> I already read the whitepaper
20:08:42 <jwinterm> sarah_c0nn0r, I think ULTRANET is the exit scam and you're just trying to get people to "burn" BTC
20:09:03 <jwinterm> otherwise you would have used a provably unspendable burn address
20:10:18 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm Even if that were true, which it isn't, how would it negatively impact the marketplace? The only thing it would do is make it so that you can't convert Bitcoin into Ultra anymore, which is fine because you can hopefully get it from an exchange at that point.
20:10:46 <jwinterm> how did you generate the address?
20:11:53 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm It's just a random address. Again, what makes you think it matters in any case? I'm honestly curious what you think makes this implementation detail so important
20:12:06 <jwinterm> and you just pinky swear that you deleted the private key?
20:12:09 <jwinterm> cmon man
20:12:25 <jwinterm> because you're a fucking scammer coming into this channel trying to recruit people for your scam
20:13:04 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm You seem to care a lot about this, even though it has no bearing on the system's value overall.
20:13:30 <jwinterm> you seem to not know what the word "burn" means
20:13:39 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm Not only that but it can literally be cahnged by any open-source contributor in the future
20:14:44 <moneromooo> People care about scammers for reasons of principle, also because they make the whole area seem scammy, because people we know (or even us) might fall prey to a scam, because a preponderence of scammers invites regulatory heavy handedness... I'm sure there are several other reasons, but here are a few.
20:15:10 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm It seems you want to write off the entire project and all the good it can do on what I view as a technical detail that has no bearing on the value the project provides to users. If you want to do that, that's fine, but understand that it seems like we're not going to get anywhere belaboring this point.
20:15:35 <sarah_c0nn0r> @moneo
20:16:05 <jwinterm> PR pending https://github.com/sarahc0nn0r/ultranet/pull/6
20:17:00 <kinghat[m]> 🍿
20:17:18 <kinghat[m]> 🍍🍕
20:18:03 <sarah_c0nn0r> moneromooo I understand, but the thing he is belaboring seems to be about as relevant as whether or not Satoshi owns the keys to his initial Bitcoin. Only it's actually way less relevant than that because he could crash the price of Bitcoin whereas the burn address on the Ultranet has literally no relevance to the value of Ultra or the marketpalce
20:18:03 <sarah_c0nn0r> as a whole because it concerns an unrelated currency
20:18:55 <jwinterm> I gotta go, looking forward to making my first contribution to ULTRASCAM tho
20:19:02 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm Thanks; I don't mind integrating it but it's a hard form that would break all the miners so it will need to be done a bit more carefully at a time when it seems like people actually care to take the hit of a hard fork to do it
20:19:14 <sarah_c0nn0r> hard fork*
20:20:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> jwinterm I appreciate that you took the time to make that change. I understand it means a lot to you and we'll work to add it in the future when we get a few more people who feel as strongly as you do iinvolved with the project
20:26:43 <[-mugatu-]> "I don't mind integrating it but it's a hard form that would break all the miners" how convenient
20:28:23 <sarah_c0nn0r> [-mugatu-] Again, I understand your skepticism, but that is a logical fact. Almost nobody who is actually using the software cares about this implementation detail and the cost of making the change doesn't outweigh the value of keeping it as-is.
20:28:56 <sarah_c0nn0r> ^ That could change in the future, of course, and if it does I'm sure the community will change it.
20:31:50 <[-mugatu-]> https://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Ryan-Gosling-Laughing.gif
20:40:33 <hyc> if people using the software don't care that it does what it claims, then they're idiots
20:41:15 <sarah_c0nn0r> hyc What bearing does the burn address actually have on anyone using the software or holding Ultra?
20:42:17 <[-mugatu-]> stop calling it a burn address when it isn't
20:46:14 <moneromooo> Stealth donation address ? Sounds edgy.
20:50:39 <sarah_c0nn0r> moneromooo lol...
21:01:11 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> It's called a "burn address" because anybody who falls for this gets burned
21:01:15 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> It doesn't refer to the funds being burned
21:04:13 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Wait, is burning BTC the only way to get ultra?
21:04:28 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Then https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1ESiHCZQEY1srtrYGfgcRGxfKjHu9wPU94 is an immutable record of everybody's entrance to this darknet
21:04:54 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Upper bound of 20 users
21:05:09 <asymptotically> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr: i don't think so, the developer mentioned it having hundreds of miners
21:05:26 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> I'd love elaboration on how it's possible to identify the number of miners
21:05:41 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> That sounds like a problem in and of itself.
21:13:02 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr Mining and burning Bitcoin to get Ultra are the only two ways to get it. People are advised to use a service like xmr.to if they want to use Monero for unlinkability (it's actually discussed in detail in the white paper).
21:13:53 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr The number of miners is not exact. I just have a few machines mining myself and they have 100+ unique inbound connections across them. The number could be higher. You can also estimate it by where the difficulty is right now but I haven't done that.
21:15:02 <sarah_c0nn0r> There are a lot of things I want to do but can't make time for, hence why I initially was asking if anybody knows a good way to get help for the project.
21:16:01 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr if you use the Ultranet from behind a VPN or behind Whonix btw then your IP won't be visible to any nodes on the network. This is also discussed in detail in the paper
21:16:40 <selsta> But why do you call it burning Bitcoin when they aren’t actually burned?
21:16:43 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr I'm pretty sure Monero gives similar advice. For example, I never use it outside Whonix
21:17:33 <bigslim[m]> It always amazes me that people complain there are too many miners or Botnets on a coin when it was voted to move to a CPU friendly algo
21:18:23 <bigslim[m]> The little guy will rarely ever be profitable no matter the pow chosen
21:18:27 <sarah_c0nn0r> selsta They're sent to an address I nobody access but if you want us to call it something different since I can't prove that, I'm open to it
21:18:28 <moneromooo> The same reason why people complain about brexit when it was voted for.
21:18:56 <moneromooo> Well, mostly. It's true that for the mining thing, it's sometimes the same people...
21:19:13 <selsta> sarah_c0nn0r: The whole goal of this should be that no one has to “trust” you.
21:19:46 <sarah_c0nn0r> bigslim[m] I think people are still getting ~20 Ultra a week on CPU FWIW
21:20:37 <moneromooo> Damn I love programming. Fucking pain in the ass but I love it.
21:20:54 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr>  y p e   UpdateMerchantMetadata   s t r u c t{69// MerchantID  i s  a 32−byte  i d e n t i f i e r  for  the  merchant .  I t  i s  generally  computed70// as  the  hash  of  the  o r i g i n a l  RegisterMerchant  transaction .  I t  i s  unique  for71// each merchant .72MerchantID∗BlockHash7374// NewPublicKey  i s  the  public  key a merchant
21:20:55 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> wants  to  change  to .  I f  l e f t  unset ,75//  the  public  key  w i l l  be unchanged .76NewPublicKey[ ] b y t e77// NewUsername  i s  the  username a merchant wants  to  change  to .  I f  l e f t  unset ,78//  the  username  w i l l  be unchanged .79NewUsername[ ] b y t e80// NewDescription  i s  the  description  a merchant wants  to
21:20:55 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> change  to .  I f  l e f t81// unset ,  the  description  i s  unchanged .82N e w D e s c r i p t i o n   [ ] b y t e83// A merchant can use  t h i s  f i e l d  to  burn more Ultra  to  improve  her  reputation .84BurnAmountNanos   u i n t 6 4
21:21:08 <asymptotically> bigslim[m]: who complained about too many miners or botnets?
21:21:08 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Oh wow that's terrible formatting
21:21:24 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Do these transactions contain plaintext usernames?
21:21:37 <sarah_c0nn0r> selsta the foobar address has no bearing on trustlessness. Even if it turned out to be spendable, the economics of owning Ultra and the value of the Ultranet platform to users wouldn't be affected. It's literally an implementation detail like Satoshi having the keys to his initial coins (only way less economically relevant than that)
21:22:04 <moneromooo> Mainly people who want to make more money mining, and one person yapping at monero's heels because it might make it sound bad somehow.
21:22:24 <selsta> It’s not an implementation detail. It changes the whole incentive if you have the possibility to exit scam.
21:22:33 <sarah_c0nn0r> moneromooo sounds like everyone has haters :)
21:22:46 <selsta> Satoshi never claimed that their addresses are burn addresses.
21:22:52 <sarah_c0nn0r> How is it an exit scam and how do incentives change?
21:23:05 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> https://imgur.com/a/Jsgd6lc
21:23:59 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr it's hard to read what you copied-- what was your question exactly?
21:24:49 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> The definition of transaction tipe UpdateMerchantMetadata
21:24:55 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> s/tipe/typpe
21:25:02 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> whoops
21:25:35 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> I took a screenshot and posted to that imgur link since the formatting was terrible
21:27:04 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Digging through the whitepaper trying to understand all the data and metadata that is recorded on the ultra blockchain
21:27:26 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> and which of it is plaintext versus encrypted
21:28:07 <UkoeHB_> By having a spendable burn address you'd basically be implying people have to buy Ultra from you
21:28:13 <UkoeHB_> With bit coin
21:29:04 <sarah_c0nn0r> I see it now. Yes there is some data that is plaintext but everything important is encrypted. Merchants have usernames and their transactions are not unlinkable (unless they rotate accounts and/or buy Ultra with Monero initially rather than Bitcoin through xmr.to). The paper discusses these decisions in detail in the section on privacy
21:29:22 <UkoeHB_> So it's quite a big detail conceptually. Do you in fact have the power to mint coins, or is it a feature of the system that mints coins?
21:29:54 <sarah_c0nn0r> The reason btw that merchants have usernames is it allows them to build reputation, which they're OK with sacrificing linkability for generally.
21:31:21 <sarah_c0nn0r> UkoeHB_ Even if the burn address were spendable, there is no way to mint coins. The protocol only mints coins if you send Bitcoin to the burn address and if the burn address ever spends then that mechanism of minting coins turns off so you're just left with mining.
21:32:03 <UkoeHB_> The precise mechanism isn't important since I'm talking in broad concepts
21:32:15 <sarah_c0nn0r> It's all programmatic-- nodes look for transactions that send BTC to the burn address and only mint coins once they have enough confirms based on a hardcoded price schedule in the protocol
21:32:51 <UkoeHB_> Your project would look a lot more legitimate if the burn address was proveably unspendable
21:33:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> UkoeHB_ Understood-- but it's important to understand that the address being spendable does not give anyone the ability to mint coins outside the rules of the system
21:33:13 <selsta> yea it’s weird how you try to argue that having a spendable burn address is not a big deal
21:33:35 <selsta> unless you are planning to exit scam with it
21:34:12 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> It also appears that ultra txn fees are paid with ETH
21:34:17 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Which is going to bleed information left and right
21:34:40 <UkoeHB_> Yeah no need to justify it, just push through a hardfork asap
21:34:42 <sarah_c0nn0r> selsta Again there is nothing to exit scam but I understand your skepticism. It's an implementation detail that we live with for now and can change if it turns out users really care in the future
21:35:02 <selsta> The funds from the burn address are there to exit scam??
21:35:13 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr that's not correct; the system runs as its own blockchain. No ETH involved
21:35:42 <[-mugatu-]> selsta: ITS AN UNIMPORTANT DETAIL OK
21:35:55 <UkoeHB_> You came here asking for development help. No respectable developer should work on a project which doesn't prioritize fundamentals like proveably unspendable burn addresses and so on
21:36:30 <UkoeHB_> The protocol is essential
21:37:01 <moneromooo> What's funny is the there was plausible deniability about it being on purpose until all the back and forth.
21:37:30 <sarah_c0nn0r> UkoeHB_ If it had any economic bearing on the project I would agree. But it seems that people here have strong principles that go beyond any economic justification. If it turns out many are like this we'll change it, but as of right now it's not worth hard forking
21:37:53 <[-mugatu-]> :3
21:38:08 <selsta> [-mugatu-]: lol
21:38:14 <UkoeHB_> It's not an economic question we are pointing out.
21:38:35 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> I think that if you came back in a few weeks, and showed us that the burn address has been changed in the main codebase to something that is provably unspendable, people will be much more likely to take the engineering aspects of this protocol seriously.
21:38:46 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Or tomorrow, for that matter. : )
21:39:09 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Sorry that we're getting hung up on this, but once it's fixed we can move past and collaborate more constructively.
21:39:37 <moneromooo> Ooooh, a new contributor-in-waiting. sarah_c0nn0r has struck g0ld.
21:39:47 <moneromooo> (in more ways than one ?)
21:40:02 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr I appreciate the feedback. It definitely seems to be the case among this crew, and maybe that is what it takes more broadly. If that's the case I assure you you'll get your wish. Btw, thanks generally for being civil about things; I really do appreciate it generally
21:42:51 <[-mugatu-]> some of us have just dealt with many many scammers using the same or similar arguments that you have. For that reason some of us will not take the time to be civil
21:44:41 <sarah_c0nn0r> [-mugatu-] I get it man; I know there's a lot of crap out there. FWIW I really think if you move past the hangup on the foobar address there's a lot to appreciate about the project. But I understand if that's difficult, and I also understand if you don't have the patience for it.
21:45:53 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> Our aggressive skepticism towards potentially projects may seem harsh, but its root is a strong concern for the safety of users who rely on privacy-preserving tech
21:46:23 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> >> towards potentially dubious projects
21:46:25 <[-mugatu-]> as long as its not provably unspendable I won't even spend any time on it apart from warning others against it if it happens to come up in conversation
21:47:00 <moneromooo> Let's meet halfway, [-mugatu-]: how about making it provably spendable ?
21:47:12 <[-mugatu-]> :O
21:47:42 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr> I have a tonne of work to do this morning, so I have to split.
21:47:49 <_1ESiHCZQEY1srtr>  Sarah_c0nn0r let me know once the address is updated. I keep up with logs for this channel.
21:48:24 <sarah_c0nn0r> _1ESiHCZQEY1srtr That much is clear and I fully appreciate that. I will circle back if/when the change is made.
21:52:24 <UkoeHB_> I think the phrase is 'conflict of interest'
22:03:08 <tsomm> Hey guys
22:03:18 <tsomm> How we all doin today?
22:04:26 <tsomm> So question
22:04:40 <tsomm> can XMR be mined on a SHA-256 miner?
22:04:44 <moneromooo> No.
22:04:59 <tsomm> Hmm
22:05:02 <tsomm> XMC?
22:05:18 <moneromooo> XMC ?
22:06:28 <tsomm> moneromooo: https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero-classic/
22:06:50 <moneromooo> Oh, if that's a monero fork, then no idea. You'd have to see what they're using.
22:07:03 <moneromooo> Seems unlikely though.
22:07:12 <tsomm> I dunno
22:07:27 <tsomm> I struggle runing 4.74/th a sec on bitcoin
22:07:51 <tsomm> *the power eating*
22:08:07 <moneromooo> Anything that's not Bitcoin and uses the same PoW algorithm has a LOT less hash, so opens itself to an easy 51% attack. So it's unlikely anything does.
22:09:04 <tsomm> Wait...
22:09:11 <tsomm> Are you an admin?\
22:09:32 <moneromooo> Of this channel ? No.
22:09:43 <tsomm> Hmm hexchat is wired
22:09:47 <tsomm> Says your op
22:10:04 <moneromooo> Don't think I am. It'd be a mistake if I were...
22:10:32 * tsomm just shrugs
22:10:41 * moneromooo shrugs in sympathy
22:11:11 <moneromooo> I see you've not forgot how to intrusively probe people's clients.
22:11:15 <moneromooo> (CTCP)
22:11:44 * [-mugatu-] CTCPs moneromooo
22:11:45 <tsomm> Yep
22:11:45 <moneromooo> np though, I once did it to a whole chan by mistake :S
22:11:53 <tsomm> OOOF
22:11:56 <tsomm> So
22:11:58 <tsomm> many
22:11:59 <tsomm> pings
22:12:00 <Quotes> pong
22:12:15 <tsomm> go away, bots
22:14:55 <tsomm> Allright, seems like they have a tellagrame
22:16:00 <yanmaani> what are you guys on about?
22:17:32 <tsomm> XMC
22:17:43 <tsomm> fork of xmr for sha-256
22:17:45 <tsomm> i think
22:18:16 <thespiritmolekul> don't touch it?
22:18:22 <moneromooo> Well, colour me surprised.
22:18:23 <selsta> it does not use sha-256 unless they changed it
22:18:44 <selsta> the whole point of monero classic is to not change algo so it most likely uses some variant of cryptonight
22:19:17 <moneromooo> That's the fork that did not fork ?
22:20:16 <tsomm> I dunno
22:20:27 <tsomm> I got a cheap antminer s7 off of ebay
22:20:39 <tsomm> and are playing around with it
22:20:43 <tsomm> is*
22:21:17 <selsta> you can probably use it as a door stopper lol
22:22:18 <tsomm> Well it mines
22:22:35 <tsomm> at a lovely rate of 4.7/TH a sec
22:22:57 <tsomm> we have even hit like 5 or 6 or 7 th for a few min
22:23:05 <tsomm> runing at 750Mhz
22:37:33 <thespiritmolekul> dang didnt realize how cheap those were