00:11:13 <plowsof[m]> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/249
00:28:52 <crypto_grampy[m]> <plowsof[m]> "https://repo.getmonero.org/moner" <- Oooooo
00:29:00 <nioc> plowsof[m]: thx for the headsup
00:31:26 <Rucknium[m]> I strongly support this proposal. Of course, I'm mentioned in it, so take that with a grain of salt.
01:26:36 <geonic> "I received a job offer to join Cypher Stack doing research work." - lol
01:35:57 <crypto_grampy[m]> <plowsof[m]> "https://repo.getmonero.org/moner" <- Really excited to see some work done on monero-lws jberman 
01:36:06 <crypto_grampy[m]> * Really excited to see some work done on monero-lws jberman 
06:29:37 <dEBRUYNE> jberman[m]: Would recommend to post your proposal on Reddit as well to improve visibility
10:48:04 <utxobr[m]> <crypto_grampy[m]> "Really excited to see some work..." <- oh that's awesome, j-berman has been putting some great work
12:09:58 <sethsimmons> <plowsof[m]> "https://repo.getmonero.org/..." <- Commented there, but I cannot speak highly enough of jberman. I've spent many hours chatting with him and got to meet him in person at DEFCON, and cannot wait to see his talents put to work full-time on Monero.
12:09:58 <sethsimmons> This is a huge win for the project, and I'm excited to see a great dude funded once this is merged.
12:26:32 <kinghat[m]> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/aug/15/rise-of-cryptocurrencies-can-be-traced-to-nixon-abandoning-gold-in-1971
12:33:19 <msvb-web> sethsimmons It seems jberman is familiar with Austin as well, in case a group forms to meet there in 2022 as we discussed.
12:34:21 <sethsimmons> I would definitely be game for that! I'm planning on attending Bear Arms N' Bitcoin in June 2022 (and potentially doing a Monero presentation), so maybe we can organize something around that.
13:18:54 <plowsof[m]> There was a +12.5~ and +0.003~ donation to the GF at exactly the same time earlier. My suspicion is that this is a change output (someone has just paid for 'something' perhaps out of the +13.4 donation recently). But nothing has been announced here / github that im aware of, i kindly ask the powers that be to throw me a friggin bone here and tell me if it was change or real 🥲
13:30:38 <selsta> binaryFate: ^
13:36:09 <Inge> is this the original "dev fund" wallet, or is there a new one with a new public view key available?
13:38:36 <plowsof[m]> The original, viewkey : f359631075708155cc3d92a32b75a7d02a5dcf27756707b47a2b31b21c389501
13:38:36 <plowsof[m]> address: 44AFFq5kSiGBoZ4NMDwYtN18obc8AemS33DBLWs3H7otXft3XjrpDtQGv7SqSsaBYBb98uNbr2VBBEt7f2wfn3RVGQBEP3A
13:41:34 <Inge> yeah that is the original one
13:54:42 <MSvB[m]> Does anyone know the Cake wallet RTC area, is it IRC:libera.chat/#monero-cake or something similar?
13:55:11 <MSvB[m]> I'm quite happy to see they are using Flutter.
13:56:07 <MSvB[m]> Nothing on Matrix it seems.
13:57:53 <plowsof[m]> is this it? https://twitter.com/cakewallet/status/1263581918777335808
14:10:07 <binaryFate> plowsof[m]: I made a 0.8 XMR transfer to pay for matrix server. Apparently used the 13.4 donation output indeed.
14:10:22 <binaryFate> Well spotted :)
14:12:08 <binaryFate> thanks for the ping selsta
14:24:03 <MSvB[m]> plowsof Nice try, it seems the cake id is not active on Libera, probably was at Freenode and then abandoned.
14:24:39 <plowsof[m]> Thanks for clarifying binaryFate, these are the types of payments i consider 'boring' and 'not worthy' of an announcement, but, it would still be nice if you could post them still 🥺😳 (as they create these large change outputs) If you want to make a tweet with my transparrent piggy just do this:... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/23c4bb4e2e93623e3346f60cbb473d2e353475f7)
14:25:10 <MSvB[m]> There is a Telegram channel but it is not populated with real human dialogue (automatic answer database.)
14:26:57 <binaryFate> plowsof[m]: what is "this channel" or where do you expect me to post?
14:28:28 <plowsof[m]> This one, OR gitlab ( i tried to see what your usual behaviour was so you dont have to do anything different) 
14:28:51 <plowsof[m]> ehh i mean 'monero community' 
14:29:09 <plowsof[m]> monero social* 
14:32:42 <plowsof[m]> here is an example of a comment -> a tweet:
14:32:43 <plowsof[m]> -0.8 XMR to pay for our Matrix servers htttpThe-RedditLink 19e73a7a46edfed034ced431bba2ecc9da34cd2aadec8f5f212f8fae14b4b8e0
14:32:43 <plowsof[m]> Which is tweeted: https://twitter.com/WatchFund/status/1431262128376356866
14:32:52 <binaryFate> ok I'll try to remember next time
14:35:20 <plowsof[m]> You'll always have 1 hour after the payment got 1 confirmation to type it... if you you announce the next payment and my tool fails i will die of embarrassment 
15:06:52 <anhdres[m]> Hi there community fellows, pinging about monerujo's ccs. What's the status on that? Are we waiting for something in particular?
15:16:41 <Inge> anhdres[m]: looking at the comments, it seems luigi1111 would like some input on the (currently) $140/hour hourly rates "as it seems outside the norm."
15:17:53 <Inge> When is the next community meeting? binaryFate luigi1111 selsta ?
15:30:01 <carrington[m]> It was discussed at the previous community meeting and there was wide support
15:31:16 <selsta> current rate is ~3x from what other devs are asking
15:31:23 <selsta> i'm all for this ccs but current rate seems a bit high
15:31:50 <selsta> something like early payout could be done for volatility
16:23:39 <anhdres[m]> ok so basically it is expected of us to lower the rates to get it approved and moved to the published state where people are able to donate?
16:32:36 <Keiji[m]> I asked if people wanted a community meeting in 2 or 4 weeks. Only 1 person replied and they said 4 weeks
16:53:51 <ErCiccione> i agree with selsta. The proposal is cool but the rate is a bit too much
16:57:00 <crypto_grampy[m]> This might be a dumb question, but I'm not 💯 familiar with ccs proposals.    Why does it matter how much someone asks for funding?  Wouldn't allowing people to ask for higher rates  possibly incentivize more developers wanting to work on the project?  
16:58:01 <crypto_grampy[m]> Depending on where one lives in the world there is a significant variation in how far a defined rate goes 
16:58:27 <crypto_grampy[m]> * Depending on where one lives in the world there is a significant variation in how far a defined rate goes in terms of purchasing power
16:58:28 <carrington[m]> A proposal should only be deemed "too expensive" if there is an expectation that they are topped up by funds from the General Fund, which has happened often in the past
16:59:37 <crypto_grampy[m]> I see
17:00:05 <crypto_grampy[m]> Perhaps there should be a defined rate then?  And if you go above this, you forgo ability to get gen fund top up?
17:00:09 <carrington[m]> Usually that seemed to happen to proposals which have a brief funding window for whatever reason. If a funding window can be left open for a long time with the understanding that it won't get any funds from the General Fund, I don't see why asking for higher amounts should be an issue
17:00:59 <carrington[m]> <Keiji[m]> "I asked if people wanted a commu" <- Several noteworthy CCS proposals have popped up since then so it might be worthwhile to try and schedule a meeting earlier
17:04:54 <carrington[m]> I note however that one the Sidekick proposal 90 XMR (50% of total) is allotted for a "Proof of Concept" with a target date of August 1st (nearly one month in the past)
17:05:43 <carrington[m]> So if this refers to the demo I saw on twitter then half of the proposal is to fund work already completed
18:03:35 <anhdres[m]> <crypto_grampy[m]> "This might be a dumb question, b" <- The thing that is a bit confusing is that opinions from a couple of members stalls the proposal, not taking into account the fact that several other members made their endorsement clear without complaints. I wish this wasn't a discussion on a proposal that impacts me directly so as to have a less "biased" opinion. But it looks needlessly centralized. Maybe we should implement
18:03:36 <anhdres[m]> some kind of voting system where someone can raise an opinion, like "I think the rates are too high" and then people vote, and we get a better sense of the actual feelings of a more representative chunk of the members.
18:03:51 <anhdres[m]> I'm talking for myself here, not an official Monerujo team statement.
18:05:09 <anhdres[m]> I'll check with the rest of the team and get back with one on this matter. Sincere thanks to everyone involved in polishing this CCS to make it better and more likely to get funded.
18:06:26 <Rucknium[m]> Note that BCH has a crowdfunding protocol that is completely permissionless, self-hosted and noncustodial:
18:06:26 <Rucknium[m]> https://flipstarter.cash/
18:07:42 <Rucknium[m]> It has funded 78 projects for a total of 9,000 BCH, which is over 5 million Euro/USD at current valuation: 
18:07:42 <Rucknium[m]> https://flipstarters.bitcoincash.network
18:09:28 <Rucknium[m]> However, the permissionless nature of it comes with difficulties in proposal quality and accountability.
18:09:43 <Rucknium[m]> Disclosure: I was recently funded for a 18 BCH flipstarter proposal: https://flipstarter.redteam.cash/
18:14:12 <Rucknium[m]> I am not sure of all the technicalities, but it may be possible to set up something like that for Monero without any changes to Monero's protocol itself:
18:14:12 <Rucknium[m]> https://read.cash/@flipstarter/introducing-flipstarter-695d4d50
18:16:21 <anarkiocrypto[m]> Monero's CCS and BCH's Flipstarter are much better than ZCash's KYC fundraising...
18:19:13 <anarkiocrypto[m]> It would probably be possible to clone Flipstarter and make a general Monero Gofundme/Kickstarter clone that isn't limited to projects for the Monero ecosystem (but could also be used for these).
18:19:23 <nikg83[m]> > <@rucknium:monero.social> Note that BCH has a crowdfunding protocol that is completely permissionless, self-hosted and noncustodial:
18:19:23 <nikg83[m]> > https://flipstarter.cash/
18:19:23 <nikg83[m]> > 
18:19:23 <nikg83[m]> A permission less platform for monero would be nice 
18:29:06 <luigi1111w> I think there is enough support to proceed at the current (EUR) ask, but another point was brought up today I'd like to cover briefly: ~half the proposal seems to be for work already completed. Is this: 1 completely fine, support; 2 don't care one way or the other; 3. negative or don't support ?
18:33:07 <luigi1111w> I want to resolve/merge this by tomorrow, pending the above, I just ask a price refresh (or a removal of buffer + upfront payout, certainly not much issue in this case given the history of the contributors and that half is already done).
18:45:28 <carrington[m]> 1 completely fine, but I think the proposal needs a "funding window" or some sort of plan for what will be done if full funding is not raised (I.e. if only 90XMR is raised, do we get only the demo which is already complete?)
18:50:28 <nioc> 1
19:57:42 <rbrunner> A bit late, but here is my "1": If something starts to work and risks to not getting paid should the CCS not come to be, it's ok for in turn to include work already done
20:14:48 <rbrunner> Of course *somebody, not "something". Facepalm.
20:54:41 <geonic> 1, with the caveat that I personally justify these terms as a thank-you to Monerujo for all the gratis work they've done over the years. if a well-funded (or unknown) entity came with the same terms, I'd be more inclined to vote no. #doublestandards
21:01:34 <geonic> that said I think the proposed rate can at least be lowered to what was discussed in the meeting (100 eur/hr dev, 60 eur/hr design)
21:09:28 <geonic> (also, if we're doing GF top-ups if price decreases, any funding excess in case of a price increase should be returned to the GF) anhdres[m] can you clarify who is taking on the volatility?
21:27:33 <anhdres[m]> <geonic> "(also, if we're doing GF top-ups..." <- Thank you for discussing it. It's my understanding that the volatility was always taken care on our side, regardless if positive or not. Today has been a bit erratic, I'll get m2049r and baltsar- and get back to you with an official reply asap. Same about the 100/60 proposal. Thanks!
22:11:20 <ComplyLast> <nioc> 1
22:11:21 <ComplyLast> +1
22:11:45 <nioc> so 2 ?
22:12:26 <nioc> oh he left
22:12:28 <nioc> lol