Overview and Logs for the Dev Meeting Held on 2019-06-30
Development status, Code & ticket discussion, and miscellaneous
dev diaries
core
crypto
el00ruobuob / rehrar
Logs
<rehrar> hey guys <rehrar> it's time for a meeting <rehrar> as always, we'll try not to drag and make this longer then it needs to be. <rehrar> 1. Greetings <sarang> Hi <rbrunner> Hi! <vtnerd__> Hi <kinghat> shalom <rehrar> Alright. 2. What's been completed since last meeting. <rehrar> Anyone have an update on stuff? <rehrar> dsc_ selsta dEBRUYNE for GUI people? <rehrar> moneromooo TheCharlatan CLI? <dsc_> thecharlatan working on reproducible builds for GUI <rehrar> fluffypony luigi1111 smooth for Core Team? <dsc_> I'm working on better tails integration <dEBRUYNE> GUI v0.14.1.0 is around the corner <rbrunner> Ah, that corner? <dsc_> I've updated https://autonode.xmr.pm/ to show more remote nodes <moneromooo> I did some more work on share-rpc, seeing someone's started reviewing. <moneromooo> It would be nice if more people reviewed, and if someone did something with it <sarang> moneromooo: do you consider the CLSAG implementation branch suitable for PR/review (not to merge yet, just for review) <moneromooo> Yes. <moneromooo> It doens't have your latest changes though. <sarang> Right, and I plan to update 5707 (and its CLSAG equivalent) again soon <sarang> those are pretty minor overall <moneromooo> Then it might not be be ready. <luigi1111> I don't have an update <dsc_> thanks for the update luigi1111 <rehrar> luigi1111: you can update us on the brand of soda the core team drinks as the relax in the lounge <dEBRUYNE> With respect to a timeline for CLSAG, is October too optimistic? We must also take into account third party wallet providers, which will have to make changes too <rehrar> thanks everyone for the updates <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: this is going to be unpopular to say, as it's been discussed before, but if we're "right on the edge" with CLSAG, then why not just push the fork back a month? <sarang> dEBRUYNE: No final word from potential reviewers yet... I reached out again <sarang> So I do not have a timeline for CLSAG review <rehrar> 25% savings in ring sigs is kind of cool and nice to have. <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: So push the October fork back to November? <rehrar> if it'd give us the breathing room that would make enough people more comfortable with the timing, then yes <sarang> Why not wait until spring? <rehrar> Ah, wait no. we want RandomX in ASAP, huh? <vtnerd__> This is 25% savings just for the ring sigs portion, not the entire tx, right? I don't see the reason for the push <rehrar> so pushing it back maybe isn't great <sarang> vtnerd__: a 2-2 txn shrinks by 25% overall <sarang> not just sigs <sarang> (ring sigs themselves shrink by approx 50%) <rehrar> oof <rbrunner> My gut feeling tells me that RandomX and those CLSAG thing together will be a bit too much ... <vtnerd__> Hmm need to read the paper then, didn't realize it dropped that much <sarang> you save 320 bytes per spent input <sarang> and about 20% on sig verification time <vtnerd__> They are separate things entirely <vtnerd__> They are either ready independently or not <sarang> And to clarify, there's working code already that anyone is free to review <sarang> (verification code will be tweaked a bit still) <vtnerd__> Yeah the issue was a math review though ... ? <sarang> Yes, and a formal code review <sarang> But getting early internal review would be useful <rehrar> even though waiting on bulletproofs was a good idea, it was still painful to have that six months of big big transactions <vtnerd__> Oh you wanted both for this too? Ok <rehrar> that we forever carry <sarang> vtnerd__: it's important enough that I think both math/code review are important <sarang> esp. since MLSAG never got a formal audit <vtnerd__> I mean its either that or risk an entire blow up of the coin <vtnerd__> In response to rehrar <dEBRUYNE> sarang: I'd be fine with spring, that at least gives third wallet providers plenty of time to work on it <luigi1111> I think spring yes <luigi1111> for clsag <rehrar> yes, but my suggestion was pushign back a month for audits <rehrar> which lessens chance of coin blow up <sarang> Well, I can let everyone know when I hear back from our potential reviewers <sarang> OSTIF are also putting out feelers <dEBRUYNE> <rehrar> yes, but my suggestion was pushign back a month for audits <= Can you elaborate? <dsc_> Has anyone heard from fluffy regarding GUI release? <dsc_> Has he arrived home yet? <rehrar> if someone could see into the future, we can both see the outcome of the audits as well as save money by not paying for them <rbrunner> If we wait with CLSAG until spring, will there be time to build something nice on top of it until then in addition? <sarang> Also: earlier internal code review may reveal bugs that we can fix before sending code off to the reviewers <sarang> rbrunner: ? <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: it's just pushing this fall fork back one month to give some breathing room to get some CLSAG audits in <rbrunner> Like those famous atomic swaps, or whatever <rehrar> but as I said I see reasons not to do that. It was more in response to vtnerd__ <dEBRUYNE> dsc_: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/c6y542/any_news_on_the_gui_release/esc02my/ <sarang> DLSAG's key image issue makes it unsuitable for implementation just yet, IMO <sarang> CLSAG is basically ready without such (known) problems <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: Seems like a bit of a slippery slope <dEBRUYNE> Seems safer and more prudent to wait six months <dEBRUYNE> In the grand scheme of things six months isn't that much anyway <rehrar> I don't disagree, dEBRUYNE <rehrar> proving alternative viewpoints <rehrar> although how long six months is in tech and blockchain relatively is much bigger <sarang> It's pretty moot at this point anyway <sarang> Until we hear about audits <rbrunner> Well, I think that "blockchain relative time" has slowed considerably lately <rehrar> true. So maybe move on. <sarang> It's a moo point. Like a cow's opinion <rehrar> rbrunner: not with fireice and ryo nipping at our heels. <sarang> Doesn't matter <rbrunner> Lol <rehrar> Pretty soon we'll be doing coordinated, organized attacks out of fear <rehrar> alright, moving on <rehrar> 3. Code/Ticket discussion <rbrunner> I have used the Go RPC bindings: https://github.com/monero-ecosystem/go-monero-rpc-client <rbrunner> My 2 PR's to improve on that were just merged today. <rbrunner> Can confirm that the bloody thing works. <dEBRUYNE> rbrunner: Have you spent any work (or chatted with the team about it) on OB lately? <rbrunner> Yes, and the ball is definitely in their court now: https://github.com/OpenBazaar/openbazaar-go/issues/1638 <moneromooo> That sounds like a lot of nice work there. <rehrar> much applause! <rehrar> Is that something Revuo worthy, you think? <rehrar> Go RPC stuffs? <rbrunner> Ah, hmmm, maybe not yet the OpenBazaar stuff, quite early yet. <rbrunner> RPC is of course ok to mention, maybe other people will use it <rehrar> Alright, if there's nothing else we can move on <dEBRUYNE> Nice work rbrunner <rbrunner> Thanks! <rehrar> I'm assuming in "Old Business" we don't need to continue discussion on Payment IDs? <dsc_> very nice rbrunner <moneromooo> Only if there are new arguments. <rehrar> going once <rehrar> going twicee <dEBRUYNE> rbrunner: "and no support for moderation" <= Is that even feasible at this point? <rehrar> hearing none, I think we can move on from PIDs <rbrunner> Doubtful, unfortunately. <rehrar> Ok, any other meeting items? <rehrar> Just as kind of announcement. People going to Vegas for Defcon, some of us are going a couple days early (starting monday the 5th) to hang out and chill. All are invited and welcome. <dEBRUYNE> rbrunner: I guess they could apply a similar process as bisq for moderation <dEBRUYNE> <rehrar> I'm assuming in "Old Business" we don't need to continue discussion on Payment IDs? <= I think the rough consensus was that we should start with a full software removal first <dEBRUYNE> (please correct me if I am wrong) <rbrunner> Don't remember exactly, isn't Bisq multisig-based as well? <dEBRUYNE> Partly (for the BTC part) <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: every core team member that spoke up (in the issue) was very against that. Smooth, ArticMine, binaryFate <moneromooo> I'll keep the parsing code with an opt-in flag in monerod I think. <rbrunner> to hang out and chill <- is that even allowed for Monero people? <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: No? <rehrar> ohhhh wait <rehrar> never mind, I'm speaking of PID removal in general <rehrar> not long <dEBRUYNE> They were against parsing tx_extra / temporary ban <rehrar> I got confused cuz you said "software removal 'first' " <rehrar> and thought you were hinting at the reversal later <rehrar> my bad <dEBRUYNE> Hmm no <dEBRUYNE> As far as I know, no one was against a full software removal <rehrar> cool <dEBRUYNE> There were people opposed against (i) temporary banning the tx_extra field, (ii) permanently banning the tx_extra field, (iii) parsing the tx_extra field to disallow long payment IDs <rehrar> then we gucci <sarang> Define "full software removal" for clarity, plz? <sarang> As in, no GUI option to add one for outgoing? <rehrar> as I understand, Isthmus says he has some very interesting research going on about "treasures" found in th tx_extra field <rehrar> I'd like to see that research when it happens, and we can discuss the pros and cons afterwards <rbrunner> Huh? Really? <moneromooo> In fact, I already made that code. I have shitloads of stuff that's not being PRed just because it conflicts due to merging being stalled now <rbrunner> That does not sound too good ... <dEBRUYNE> moneromooo: Do you have a list for luigi that he can merge? <moneromooo> Yes. <dEBRUYNE> Could you post it here too? <moneromooo> Sure. One moment... <dEBRUYNE> sarang: removal from both CLI and GUI <sarang> With no option to enable via flags? <moneromooo> 5647/5666, 5650/5651, 5663/5664, 5668/5669, 5675/5676, 5678/5684 (there's more) <dEBRUYNE> That was my idea kind of <moneromooo> and 5690/5694, 5681/5708. <sarang> Note that this could cause some exchanges/services to recommend specific wallets (that do continue to support) to their users <sarang> which could be good or bad, depending on the wallets <dEBRUYNE> That's a potential risk, yes <dEBRUYNE> I deem it more likely that they will simply switch though <moneromooo> I could keep the --enable-paymend-id-bad-for-privacy, and instead of enabling them, it prints "lolno". <dEBRUYNE> moneromooo: Will send luigi the list in PM as a reminder <moneromooo> Oh I did <rehrar> dEBRUYNE sarang this is all one big experiment. I'd say let's try it this way and see how the exchanges react <moneromooo> I just don;t want to annoy him too much. <rehrar> if they don't do as we hope, then we learn from that next time we have to make a decision like this <rehrar> but this is all hypothetical at this time. Let's see what happens. <rbrunner> I really doubt that the exchanges have time on their hands to work against the community, but who knows <rehrar> well, we do have LiveCoin <moneromooo> If they recommend other wallets, I won't have any regret in breaking those in next fork ^_^ <rehrar> either way <rehrar> 4. Any last meeting items? <sarang> 5707 speeds up MLSAG, and will be sped up a bit more <moneromooo> Does anyoine want to review share-rpc ? Or did I mention that already... <sarang> review will be welcome <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: Should we perhaps discuss v0.14.1.1? <dEBRUYNE> <rehrar> dEBRUYNE sarang this is all one big experiment. I'd say let's try it this way and see how the exchanges react <= Yes <dEBRUYNE> To be fair, it is mostly the big ones that are remaining that we need to get on board <rehrar> moneromooo: I'll put it in the REvuo volunteer opportunities (for all the good that will do) <moneromooo> AFAIK it's waiting for a freebsd patch from TheCharlatan. <dEBRUYNE> Bittrex, Bitfinex, and Binance <rehrar> moneromooo: can you PM me a link to it <vtnerd__> moneromooo: I will look at it this week <moneromooo>https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5357 <moneromooo> Thanks <rehrar> thank you <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: what do you want to discuss regarding 0.14.1.1? <rehrar> the floor is yours <dEBRUYNE> Timeline kind of, what do the devs prefer? <dEBRUYNE> We can move a bit faster now that we have deterministic builds <moneromooo> As soon as the bsd patch is in. <moneromooo> (and the patches above) <rehrar> I may be getting confused because of the numbers, but didn't pony do builds already? <rehrar> or this is new? what's going into it? <moneromooo> The BSD patch and the patch list above. <rehrar> ah, k <dEBRUYNE> moneromooo: All right. Does this need a release v0.14 equivalent? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/5705 <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: new release <moneromooo> I dunno, ask TheCharlatan about this one. <dEBRUYNE> All right <rehrar> ok, anything else to discuss about this release? <moneromooo> The GUI I suppose ^_^ <rehrar> by all means, moneromooo. Take it away. <moneromooo> I don't have anything to say about it. <dEBRUYNE> GUI will follow CLI for v0.14.1.1 <dEBRUYNE> First have to wait for pony to finish the v0.14.1.0 builds though <moneromooo> There are missing builds for .0 ? I didn't even realize... <rehrar> pony is traveling again <rehrar> he does that <dEBRUYNE> Yes <dEBRUYNE> Also we kind of had to retag, which has delayed the release a bit <moneromooo> Gonna run out of places to go soon. <rehrar> he's running from the community methinks. <vtnerd__> Me? Lol I'm in a car on lte so I dropped service once and hit leave once stupidly <dEBRUYNE> rehrar: He provided an update yesterday <dEBRUYNE> Anyway, vtnerd__ I wanted to ask you if you had already started some work on dandelion++ ? <rehrar> dEBRUYNE: link? <dEBRUYNE>https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/c6y542/any_news_on_the_gui_release/esc02my/ <rehrar> alright, if there's nothign else, I think we can call it here. <rehrar> discussion can obviously continue after the fact <vtnerd__> I started to look into it. At this point my ffs pt 2 is hopefully going to make that transition easier (but it won't be a complete d++ implementation) <rehrar> Two weeks from now is the 14th of July. Same time.