How to add service to merchants list at getmonero.org?

cohcho: submit a pull request

or open an issue

there's instructions on the page for it

Thanks for reply. monero-project/monero-site #1137

lol 24/7 phone support (lie)

I love that

Hello all. Is this a good place to ask a question about the Trezor/Monero GUI integration?

Yes.

oooh the submodule get fetched automagically?

oh nvm. still gotta init

I've set up a trezor wallet and have monero-wallet-gui installed, both latest releases. I tried to send some XMR to a newly generated address after following the instructions on the trezor wiki to generate a Monero wallet on the GUI. Now, the GUI says "Please proceed to the device" while the Trezor says "Do you really want to start refresh?". I'm not sure what a "refresh" refers to in this case and can't find

anything about this online.

Did the trezor ask this prior to trying to send the tx ?

Maybe it was already prompting for the refresh.

I don't think so. I was able to generate a receive address and send to it before this prompt started showing up.

Now, if I decline the prompt, it quits the GUI and when I restart the GUI, it forces the prompt

Accept it.

It is required for wallet refresh.

Afterwards you should be able to transact.

Ok, I figured it was benign, but out of ultra paranoia wanted to check here first. Can you point me to any documentation on wallet refresh in Monero? I haven't used Monero in a couple of years and don't remember this aspect of it.

See point 9

D'oh. Figures that the one part I gloss over contains what I needed to know. Thanks selsta

np :)

Just throwing this out there, given the question of regulatory concerns: does it make sense for government to issue "wallet licenses" for every monero wallet? perhaps different licenses for different max holdings?

or "wallet registration"

I dunno. Did you see the government mandate "car licences" for every car, where you have to display a government mandated ID on it every time you go out ?

Oh wait...

They'll spy on you as much as they can get away with. Then they will wait a bit till people get used to the new normal, then spy some more, etc.

And the little shits will even have the cheek to tell you it's because they're going dark, rather than running wildly into vastly expanded spying powers they never had before.

nakedpony: yeah, they could mandate for something like that, but it's hard when essentially wallets are just key pairs.

you can't realistically gatekeep "rolling dice" behind a licence, it's ridiculous

yeah, exactly

They could you ask to register them if you wished to engage with "some entity"

moneromooo: I think you make a lot of sense. I guess the issue I'm trying to address is that perhaps we shouldn't take for granted the government can't do anything. If they can regulate banks, they can regulate us. For most of the entire history of taxation, commerce has been afforded with "private, untracable" currency

you never own any kind of coins, physical or virtual

you just know a secret that allows you sign something

or ask you to link individual transactions to some "registered" key pair. ie your identity key pair

^ is what I would be worried about

I mean in some sense having regulators acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to have private transactions in the same amounts as cash currently allows would be a win already, given what FATF currently publishes.

The US gatekeeps rolling dice.

will never work in practice. how do you know which transaction is under which country's jurisdiction?

in practice, we have increasingly centralized influence over globalized commerce

also, people will just fork existing technology and make it work on censorship-resistant darknets

artefact: but wouldn't this money be useless when you want to but "real" stuff?

i don't exactly want to talk about that using my very public nickname, but no, i don't think so.

all very valid points. I can't point out the fault in any of it. I just think there's going to be something that closes a dissonance between the government and control of the means to facilitate commerce. I would rather have this be figured out by crypto advocates, than the goverment. Because when the government finds a solution that works for it, you know it's going to be terrible for everyone else

but yes nakedpony i agree, i don't believe the current status quo will stay for long

unfortunately it's up to the advocates of change to provide the complete vision. we need to figure out what will work for gubbmint and spoon feed it to them, before they do something reactionary

but the good news is, we can define what that looks like

I mean today you in the EU a legit car dealership will not allow you to buy a Porsche with cash without disclosing information where this money came from. It is technically possible for the car dealer to take it anyway (the equivalent of taking the "fork coin") but they then have to wash the money and all kinds of crap to let it make its way into the books.

yes, the conventional financial system is pretty much well surveilled in every conceivable way

i'm scared of depositing cash in my bank account, just because i really can't be arsed to deal with a full audit

perhaps I would be clearer about getting towards a solution by better defining the problem. I think the first problem is taxation. We need to find a way for on-the-books transactions to occur, and give people *an opportunity* to do so in a way that's on the record. Like the porche. We don't need to necessarily ban private coins, or reduce the privacy of them. Just need to give people a way to create "legit" transactions

that looks familiar to an IRS entity

and this is just me brainstorming... we already bake in transaction fees. What if there were additional types of fees that could be added (depending on the type of taxation)

that automatically took the tax out, and created a transaction ID. You could prove you paid your taxes on it, without actually having to ever report anything to the government about it.

*"created a transaction ID" was poorly worded. I meant description. Or something that can be linked to the asset being transferred to you on paper

You mean like an "anonymous value added tax" in some sense? It's actually a fun idea.

fahrradflucht[m]: yeah! for that to work, that creates the need for a way for government to audit these transactions, without having to have the transactions fully reported to them

which gets back to my main idea, that we need to come up with the solutions on our side. Government isn't going to do this

Well the car dealership could still be required by the government to show a transaction to reference the Porsche it handed out. It would just hidden how purchased it.

* Well the car dealership could still be required by the government to show a transaction to reference the Porsche it handed out. It would just hidden who purchased it.

for sure! transaction made, and tax paid

and instantly, we have now turned monero from the IRS's greatest threat, to potentially a preferred means of commerce

done right, I don't even think the government needs to know the transaction amounts. If there's a system in place that allows them to verify "transaction made, tax paid." that's the minimum they need to know

Well that is not so simple. Even if you would come up with a way to prove percentage with hidden amounts the government can still deduct amounts from the amount of tax payed... :-/

Explaining to people "Monero is Money" media.giphy.com/media/RE4kKU25NjFsY/giphy.gif

fahrradflucht[m]: ah, yes I see. Perhaps that's okay, though

bysnack zib artefact moneromooo : the i2p connection/tx issues are likely related to response timeouts and not dandelion

afer thinking about bysnack 's description in particular

I've been seeing these (tx meta not found) without i2p usage.

the connection drop issue?

or the tx meta not found issue?

both

Im talking about the connection drop issue

i run a node 24/7 so if you have an idea for a patch i can test

I can do

24 / 7 i2p node

I cannot recall anyone mentioning this over tor, but tor also likely has lower latency

of course my isp decides to boot me *now*. did my previous two messages get through? did i miss any replies? (sorry)

Last from you was 2.5 hours ago.

thank you. so they didn't. tl;dr i've had the issue with both i2p and onion. i notice that i can sustain long incoming connections over i2p (>10000 sec) but not outgoing (i've never seen any go above ten-ish minutes)

Could that be related to the fact that all connections in i2p have a lifetime of 10 minutes?

i have one above 800 seconds now