Logs of yesterday's dev meeting

<dEBRUYNE> Dev meeting? <rbrunner> Would say so, yes <rbrunner> The people are still exhausted from the payment ID meeting :) <dEBRUYNE> Guess we could ping some people <dEBRUYNE> vtnerd, moneromooo, hyc, gingeropolous, TheCharlatan, sarang, suraeNoether, jtgrassie <dEBRUYNE> Anyone up for a meeting? <jtgrassie> Yep I'm here <vtnerd___> Here <oneiric_> o/ <dEBRUYNE> Perhaps we should just start and people will eventually hop in? <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> oof <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> sorry guys, I'm working on the new FFS and I forgot all about this. Got a couple of new volunteers. <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> This literally might be able to launch tomorrow. <rbrunner> I know that. It's called "flow" :) <dEBRUYNE> I could run if you're out of time? <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> go for it dEBRUYNE <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> you guys are going to like this new FFS. We're like 99% done. <sarang> Hi <oneiric_> rehrar: someone else do the milestone thing already? <dEBRUYNE> All right, jtgrassie, perhaps you'd to start w/ briefly describing your most recent PR? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5091 <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> oneiric, xiphon did everything <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> like....everything <dEBRUYNE> As far as I can see, it allows the user to push his transaction over I2P, thereby masking the origin IP of the sender/user <oneiric_> great <dEBRUYNE> And it hooks into vtnerd's PR right? <jtgrassie> Sure. It basically just builds on vtnerds Tor stuff. <oneiric_> sorry dEBRUYNE <jtgrassie> Really not much added. <jtgrassie> I have it running and tested. <dEBRUYNE> From the perspective of the user, what needs to be configured exactly? <vtnerd___> Nice <dEBRUYNE> Assuming the PR is included in the release binaries <jtgrassie> I'm using knacccs i2p-zero duirng testing but will of course work with any i2p setup <dEBRUYNE> <oneiric_> sorry dEBRUYNE <= Np <rbrunner> Looks a little like dams breaking, now that we have some dark clouds over Kovri and people take matters into their own hands ... <jtgrassie> User needs to run i2p, expose a socks service and and inbound tunnel. <jtgrassie> Basically same as Tor <dEBRUYNE> Okay, so should be reasonable as long as we write proper documentation for it (e.g. an elaborate guide) <jtgrassie> rbrunner, yes, knaccc credit for jumping on i2p-zero really <jtgrassie> dEBRUYNE: documentation monero side is kindof done. i2p side is very much implementation specific. <dEBRUYNE> I suppose we could write some guides for the most popular implementations? <jtgrassie> e.g. i2p-zero aims to be zero conf, but i2pd or Kovri would be differnet. <dEBRUYNE> I see, great <dEBRUYNE> vtnerd___: Do you want to add anything? <oneiric_> could amend the current kovri guide for monero use from --exclusive-peer to the new proxy support <jtgrassie> Now I have i2p-zero running and tested with the #5091, I plan to jump back over to helping knaccc on getting that polished. <vtnerd___> I added support for socks proxy in the basic wallets <sarang> ^ excellent <jtgrassie> Yes vtnerd___ I havent tested it yet but looks sweet. <vtnerd___> So connections to `monerod` over Tor/i2p are possible within wallet cli and wallet rpc <dEBRUYNE> Awesome <vtnerd___> This also implies auth+encryption even if ssl is not in use (when using an onion or i2p address) <dEBRUYNE> All right <dEBRUYNE> moneromooo: are you here? If so, could you perhaps share what you've been working on? <moneromooo> I am. <moneromooo> I revived the SSL PR, more stuff on multi sender txes, an implementation of ArticMine's new block size algorithm. <dEBRUYNE> I presume a multi sender tx works similar to multisig insofar as the senders have to exchange data before the transaction can be performed right? <moneromooo> Yes. <jtgrassie> There are 2 SSL PRs. What's the diff? <dEBRUYNE> Theoretically this would also allow the sender to provide an output right? Which would be kind of similar to Bitcoin's P2EP <moneromooo> The second one adds some things like selecting a cert by fingerprint. <moneromooo> Yes. <moneromooo> (for the first sentence) <dEBRUYNE> All right, awesome <dEBRUYNE> For anyone reading, this breaks the assumption of the inputs belonging to a single sender, which makes analysis more difficult <rbrunner> Nice side-effect. <rbrunner> Much work coming for the various wallets to support that <dEBRUYNE> rbrunner: Anything you'd like to share in the meeting btw? <rbrunner> Yes, just a little info <rbrunner> I have started to seriously investigate what it would mean to integrate Monero into OpenBazaar <rbrunner> I have already talked with 2 of their devs, was very interesting <rbrunner> In maybe 2 or 3 weeks I intend to write a report <rbrunner> Too early to tell much more :) <dEBRUYNE> Soon^tm I guess :) <rbrunner> Yep <rbrunner> Currently wrestling with Go debugging <rbrunner> whole new world <dEBRUYNE> moneromooo: Has pony recently shared any insights regarding the upcoming 0.14 release btw? <moneromooo> No. <dEBRUYNE> All right <jtgrassie> I would love to see the tor & i2p PR's merged sooner rather than later so we can get more testing done. <oneiric_> ^ +1 <rbrunner> Isn't that famous early code freeze already on the horizon? <dEBRUYNE> fluffypony, luigi1111 ^ <dEBRUYNE> I suppose I could provide a little update regarding the GUI btw <dEBRUYNE> As always, lots of bug fixes and improvements :-P <dEBRUYNE> selsta has recently added a feature to support multi accounts <dEBRUYNE> dsc_ has revamped the wizard and will now start working on implementing the different modes and a white theme <rbrunner> dsc_ is working fulltime on the GUI already? <dsc_> yes <rbrunner> :) <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> dsc_ is bae <dEBRUYNE> In light of the recent payment ID discussion, we've also, by default, disabled the option to add a payment ID unless the user explicitely activates the option on the settings page <dsc_> rehrar ^ <sarang> nice <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> I spoke about this yesterday at the coffee chat, this is not a good decision. <sarang> How does it handle integrated addresses? The same way? <sarang> rehrar ? <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> For the next many months, we are still stuck with PAyment IDs in the ecosystem. Making it harder for people to access them will make Monero suck so hard to use for the average person for many months. <endogenic> i agree with rehrar <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Remove the option of Payment IDs when we remove Payment IDs <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: The new GUI release won't be live until probably mid march though <dEBRUYNE> Which is a few weeks in advance of the scheduled protocol upgrade <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Payment ID removal comes in October <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> right, but Payment IDs are not removed in March <dEBRUYNE> Did we not have loose consensus on removing the old, unencrypted payment IDs in march? <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> they are removed in October <sarang> We had discussed a deprecation in March <sarang> and a ban in October <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> ok, then if we are going to do that, we have to commit to it and contact the exchanges like Binance that use them and get rid of them in the next few months <sarang> (of unencrypted) <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Binance is huge, and if they still use them, then people will be very upset that they can't deposit or use Payment IDs easily <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> I'm just speaking from a UX perspective. <dEBRUYNE> I thought it was unencrypted in April and possibly encrypted in October <dEBRUYNE> Yes I do agree <sarang> Timeline and notes: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/299 <ErCiccione[m]> impossible to remove them for march, many exchanges still use them <dEBRUYNE> We can defer it to the 0.15 release if needed <rbrunner> Well, that wasn't the impression for them log that I just read today <sarang> This was all discussed in the earlier meeting linked above <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> We have to force the ecosystem off of Payment IDs before we remove them from the UI, is all I'm saying <sarang> Remove != make difficult to use <rbrunner> ... or make them more difficult there, right? <sarang> ping sgp_ <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> sarang, I understand, and I agreed with you during that meeting. But then I started thinking of it as a UX person, which I am. <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> And that huge massive problem leapt out at me <endogenic> i think making them difficult to generate is a good idea but making them difficult to consume and use is a bad idea <endogenic> well, maybe not a good idea, but a better idea <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> ^ <dEBRUYNE> If we defer the decision to depriciate long payment IDs to october, won't we have the same issue then? <sgp_> The UI can gave an expandable payment ID field like MyMonero and we can still call it deprecated <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> It is foolhardy to remove an option that the ecosystem uses. So I suggest we keep the Payment ID in the UI until October when they are completely banned. <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> no dEBRYUNE, because they will be banned via consensus <endogenic> sgp_ imo it may be a misdirection of dev resources to add that since things are proceeding in the short term rather than long term <endogenic> but this is a relatively minor point <jtgrassie> Nothing matters til exchanges change <dEBRUYNE> All right <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> The issue is that consensus will still have them in April, and exchanges won't upgrade because they are still allowed. Thus they must still be in the UI. <sgp_> endogenic these changes are already merged in the GUI to hide it like you do <endogenic> ok <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> But when they are banned, exchanges are forced to upgrade or stop using Monero, so we can remove them safely because they won't be in use <sarang> rehrar: that's a strong assumption <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> sarang that they will upgrade? <sarang> yes <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> if they don't, then they can't use Monero <jtgrassie> If exchanges require pid, users need a way to set a pid. Making it hard for the user in the interim is just going to be a nightmare. <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> we have decided to take our "stand" in October <rbrunner> A way that is not too hard, then <dEBRUYNE> To be clear, we still intend to deprecate long encrypted payment IDs in April right? But no enforcement until October <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> the term "deprecated" doesn't mean much if it's still allowed, and used in popular places <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> yes, as far as I understand it <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> jtgrassie, exactly <dEBRUYNE> True I suppose <sgp_> dEBRUYNE: we need to be more specific when talking about deprecation <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> the person who suffers is the user <sgp_> There are two proposals for GUI deprecation: <sgp_> 1. Hide it in the send screen with a simple option to expand (currently merged iirc) <sgp_> 2. Hide it completely in the send screen unless users enable the field in advanced settings (PR'd but not merged yet iirc) <rbrunner> What are the arguments for 2? <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot <xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin> Well the people who need to be made to "suffer" are the exchanges. And I don't see a way to make exchanges "suffer" other than by having their suffering customers complain to them constantly that they need to update. <jtgrassie> ^ <sgp_> CLI has something similar where users need to set a manual payment ID transfer mode. Not sure if it's merged yet <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> the way to make the exchanges suffer is when we ban PIDs. They either upgrade or don't use Monero. <jtgrassie> exact;y <rbrunner> Agree with rerahr here <endogenic> have exchanges been provided with clear, practical, sufficient technical upgrade plans for supporting what they're doing with PIDs but with subaddrs? <dEBRUYNE> <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Both are poor options, but 1 is better than 2 by a long shot <= I wouldn't call 1. a poor option. Have you actually checked how it looks? <dEBRUYNE> Because it states "Payment ID" and a user has to click on the + to expand the field <sgp_> endogenic: yes the email when out. Blog post coming soon, but contains the same info as the email <pigeons> also the exhcnages' users are often using wallets that don't support subaddresses <endogenic> ok great <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> as well, it should be noted that the timeline for exchanges to upgrade is September, not October when the fork is. <rbrunner> Which wallets are that? <dsc_> Rehrar: I don't see option 1. causing any issues/confusion <pigeons> i guess it doesnt matter too much if withdrawing as a personal user the main address should suffice <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Because September is when the new versions will be coming out without PIDs in the UI <sgp_> If there's opposition to 2, 1 is fine. We can still call it deprecated which is the optics we need anyway <xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin> exchange users are often just using other exchanges lol. No wallets involved. <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> dsc_ dEBRUYNE, ok, I trust you guys here then <pigeons> rbrunner: i was thinking mymonero last i heard <rbrunner> Ok <endogenic> pigeons: rbrunner yes receiving on subaddresses won't be supported yet <endogenic> sending to them has been possible though <pigeons> and yes as learnandlurkin says often they withdraw to other systems like exhcnages that also dont yet support subaddresses <rbrunner> I really can't come up with any good argument for 2. right now <dEBRUYNE> endogenic: seems not much of an issue then. Exchanges will typically support withdrawals to both subaddresses and plain addresses (especially if we are going to force them to use subaddresses) <dEBRUYNE> For deposits, MyMonero works properly if the user sends to a subaddress <sgp_> Actually the second solution was already merged: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1866 <rbrunner> Maybe not enough eyes watching :) <xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin> The important thing is to have done something to justify having a big "DEPRECATED IN APRIL" stamp on PIDs to spook exchanges in the interim <sgp_> This was for solution 1: https://github.com/monero-project/monero-gui/pull/1855 <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> The Monero Community Workgroup will start making noise everywhere we can to exchanges, and everywhere else that will listen. Try to get on those garbage news sites also. <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> So everyone knows that deprecated in April, and banned in September <rbrunner> Hey, for solution 1, write "Payment ID (optional, deprecated)" or similar there <dsc_> rbrunner: noted <sgp_> rehrar: probably wait until the blog post, but it should only be a few days <xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin> Maybe a Reddit sticky post would be useful? <xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin> With the blog post <xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin> If people are over freaking out about the hashrate <rbrunner> or terabyte blockchain :) <sarang> sigh <sarang> Any questions for the MRL side? <moneromooo> Is someone checking ArticMine's block size changes for weird behaviour in some cases etc ? <rbrunner> How would such testing work? Private blockchain? <sarang> I'm waiting on cost information from ArticMine to complete the model <rbrunner> Or just simulations? <moneromooo> Also, smooth suggested a mean rather than median for the 100000 block op. It would indeed be much nicer if it doesn't make the change worse. <sarang> You mean computationally or what? <moneromooo> Nicer ? Yes. <oneiric_> no sorting needed for mean <sarang> I'll add a separate sim for that <moneromooo> Well, just nicer. Forger the much. <sarang> Forger the Much sounds like the formal name of a Lord of the Rings character <moneromooo> :) <dEBRUYNE> To close the payment ID discussion, in essence, we agree that we shouldn't make it difficult for the user to add a payment ID right (until 0.15 is released) <dEBRUYNE> ? <moneromooo> I don't. I did make it harder. <rbrunner> In the CLI, somewhat other story, I would say <rbrunner> than the GUI <rbrunner> People there are used to juggle with options and CL parameters <sgp_> rehrar: I recommend opening another issue to reverse 1866 and we can gather feedback on it there <rbrunner> Sounds good, to me at least <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> Dudes, if I do a Jitsi stream right now to show the new FFS in action, would you guys be interested in watching it? <sarang> I'd watch it, if the meeting is formally done <jtgrassie> sure <sgp_> yeah, can I start one and record it? <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> I'll give it in like fifteen minutes <xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar> I'll let you all know, stand by <sgp_> I have a question on tx_extra if no one else has anything to talk about <sgp_> People have said you can put arbitrary data in there in whatever format you want as long as you're willing to pay for it. However, do you need to mine the transaction for it to be included? I didn't think nodes would block transactions with arbitrary tx_extra data <moneromooo> It'll be in nodes' txpool when you relay it. A wallet could see it before it's mined. <sgp_> moneromooo: will it be mined though? <sgp_> by others <moneromooo> Is it valid ? <sgp_> assume it's otherwise valid <moneromooo> Does it have a high enough fee ? <sgp_> assume it does yes <sgp_> I ran into conflicting information here: https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/3627/42 <moneromooo> Then it will probably be mined. <rbrunner> I once had the idea to put "my" MMS messages in there, looked at the code, and found no hard blocks for tx_extra data <moneromooo> That answer looks incorrect. <jtgrassie> It is incorrect <sgp_> If it will be mined, then that meets my assumption. There seems to be some misconception that people will not mine transactions with arbitrary tx_extra. I can add some comments there <moneromooo> And please don't spam it, and don't put fingerprintable stuff in it. It's meant to be here for *useful* stuff that's "uniform" enough. <jtgrassie> It will be mined, whether a wallet *displays* the tx_extra is a different question. <rbrunner> I don't think any wallet currently displays that <jtgrassie> it soes if its a pid <jtgrassie> I think <rbrunner> Yeah, of course :) <sgp_> Great, that answers my question