<nioc> "Why does monero talk say that..." <- Wording they came up with I think

Not sure if the guys from Monero Talk are here but this wording about being verified is misleading

AFAIK the monero community doesn't vouch for any exchange in particular

Given the recent CCS proposal I'd rather not have this _wording_ being spread even more

I don't know how a community can be said to have verified anything.

I am out of the loop on this, where is that wording used? Looking at the most recent videos on the Monero Talk Youtube channel, they just state "ChangeNOW: a Limitless Crypto Exchange"

I clicked to earlier videos (the Guillermo Christensen interview) and I see what you mean. All the same, it looks to have been changed.

...my mistake, I didn't view the full intro. They're still using that wording.

shoqwo1[m]: there are arbitrary number of sybil nodes which monitor its peers, encryption will not help you.

* there is arbitrary ...

(for those curious on how `tor` being spotted by dpi looks like: github.com/ntop/nDPI/blob/e8455236b…9ea1ae7a9/tests/result/tor.pcap.out)

(youtube.com/watch?v=QBp6opkcxoc worth checking out if you're curious)

Any updates from @fluffypony?

Tomorrow is the day we should get some update on fluffy

apparently SA govt got hacked and bribed payment in monero

so, the hacker team 6 of monero community is breaking the pony out /s

if the SA cannot provide the paperwork until today (i guess), pony's extradition to SA won't happen.

It has been a while already. How long do they plan to keep him in jail?

There is a meeting here in just under 3 hours

The main purposes of the meeting are to discuss CCS proposals and for workgroups to give updates or discussion about anything Monero-related they have been working on

Currently, there is only one CCS idea:

Mumuks: 60 days

luigi1111: Is that how long he has been or how long they can keep him?

both

tomorrow anyway

afaik South Africa as until tomorrow to submit documents

I think they can actually keep him 90 but can release him after 60, and judge indicated they would

They could have already been submitted tho?

and he has to be released until 19 October

Inge: would show up courtlistener.com/docket/60075146/united-states-v-spagni

selsta: thanks.

luigi1111: ok, thanks

We'll see tomorrow then

The scheduled community meeting begins now!

In general, this is an opportunity for individuals or workgroups to update each other on work across the Monero ecosystem, and spark further discussion on specific issues. CCS proposals are also discussed in these meetings to gauge community consensus on moving these to the crowd funding stage.

Hi

1. Greetings & introductions

Hello

Hi. N.B. I will submit a CCS to the ideas stage within a week.

Hello everyone, I'm the maintainer of Monero Observer.

Hi

2. Community highlights

Are there any pieces of Monero-news from the previous 2 weeks which people would like to discuss?

To be fair, there doesn't seem to be much exciting news in the previous 2 weeks other than the ciphertrace news which has been discussed at length

Actually I think I have one. Considering a) the recently disclosed Matrix clients vulnerability and b) the fact that this is not the most private and well-established protocol out there, I would like to propose we discuss a potential addition of a Monero XMPP server. Sincerely, it's a pain to use this with Whonix/Tails.

3. CCS updates

There is presently only 1 CCS idea for discussion which is a proposal to maintain and publish the Monero Observer news website

I see your point, but I'm not sure "private" communication channels should be community-maintained infrastructures

The monero matrix server mainly exists for the public channels. Individuals can arrange whatever secure comms they like on their own. Just my opinion of course

Alright, so you believe there should be no Monero privacy communication channels for the public, did I read that right?

Are we having a meeting now, like is indicated in the agenda? monero-project/meta #609

carrington[m]: And what does "community" mean in this context?

I think there are 2 arguments here. 1 is about public vs private spaces for discussions and 2. Is matrix a safe protocol for discussions period

I would also argue it's reasonably well established. Both the French and German governments see fit to use it

Lest people forget there have been vulns like ShellShock in the last 5 years on much more well established software

The recent vulnerability was only in certain clients and it would only be a problem if the server were t be malicious; hopefully the Monero server isn't malicious ;)

I think the bigger issue with Matrix is that the IRC-Matrix bridges keep breaking.

All valid points. But there is no argument when it comes to XMPP being "not so well established". 5 years is nothing compared to 22 years of XMPP.

<escapethe3ra[m]1> "Alright, so you believe there..." <- No, I just think that the main motivation for the matrix server is facilitating public discussions about Monero rather than "one on one" conversations which can be arranged however people like

<escapethe3ra[m]1> "And what does "community" mean..." <- Well the matrix server is maintained by the Monero Core team under the Monero Space banner/brand.

Sure. If you want to establish an 'official' bridge though ultimately you'd need to convince Core+pigeons

Gah ironically my matrix client is glitching. Did those two replies come through?

s/bridge/XMPP bridge

carrington[m]: Yes

carrington[m]: Got it, thanks for clarifying. That's what I thought initially.

Anyways, unless people have further strong opinions on this we can move on to discussing escapethe3ra @escapethe3ra:matrix.org 's CCS proposal

My personal opinion is that the proposal is reasonable and the quality of the the author work will be judged by people over the 3 months to determine if a potential second proposal is worthwhile

Same. Furthermore, I'm sure there are people who'd be happy to review for typos, etc before an official release

My only negative point is that other "Monero news" projects have been started and abandoned in the past (see e.g. Revuo & Monero Moon)

But of course if this happens then people will just not donate to a second proposal so the problem fixes itself sorta

fwiw the monero moon(?) creator recently posted on reddit to state that he has not abandoned the project and has been busy

he intends to meet the proposal milestones still

RE: Monero Moon: Well, if you are running a news service, continuity is pretty important.

I have not used the site (monero.observer) enough to give feedback on style/content but I hope the author will take on board whatever feedback comes from the community

Yes, community feedback is an essential part of my workflow and I don't have any plans to change that.

I have a bit of feedback on Observer: I thought the most recent MRL meeting was mischaracterized somewhat. I don't think the meeting participants were "torn" about Seraphis/Triptych. Of course, you have editorial control after all, so it's all up to you.

If a little hyperbole brings more eyes on MRL stuff that is good in my book 😆

Does MRL need more drama? 🐄

I guess that's the main difference between MO and other "similar" projects like Monero Moon. It's hard trying to find your voice while sticking with facts and the journalistic approach, which I want to implement on the site.

Anyways if no one has strong points against the proposal I will add a comment about this meeting to the gitlab issue

I think the proposal is good :D

escapethe3ra[m]1: are you monero moon or monero oberver? someone with your username on reddit said they're from monero moon

Although I cannot do that until I have access to my gitlab account tomorrow. Luigi may already have moved it to funding stage by then 🤷‍♂️

Someone else feel free to add a comment sooner

Drama was certainly not my intention, sorry if anyone interpreted that article in such a way.

plowsof[m]: Monero Observer.

carrington[m]: Thanks for the trust.

4. Workgroup reports

I will leave the floor open for workgroup members to take the mic and we can triage if there are multiple

Rucknium and anyone else that's a reader of MO, please don't feel like you can't get in touch with me anytime you see something that can be better on the site, I always reply to all emails.

(Because, mea culpa, I did not spread this meeting to all relevant workgroups as I should have)

Note: I have a question for feedback about my forthcoming CCS

<msvb-lab> "Are we having a meeting now..." <- Yes

Rucknium[m]: Go ahead, there seems to be no one desperate to discuss their work today

Ok great. I have a little conundrum: Some details of my plan for execution of my CCS are "sensitive" -- I have a Vulnerability Response Process submission under review. So I'm thinking that it would be "best" if I were able to be pretty vague about what my research roadmap would entail, but I don't know how the community would respond to that.

I may be overthinking it because I could just discuss goals and not many people would be interested in the mechanics about how to reach goals or would be able to understand them anyway.

Basically, I don't know how people would respond to me saying, "Just trust me on this one". Of course, key community members have reviewed my plan, so they can vouch for it.

Rucknium: imho, totally fine to be vague to not reveal anything too sensitive - if i'm donating, it's because I trust

If key community members "in the loop" add comments vouching for the importance of the work that should be good enough IMO

As long as goals, qualifications/skills & milestones are clear that is all that really matters

I also think that people would be more willing to "just trust" if they truly knew the status quo. For example, did you know that the current mixin selection algorithm was developed by non-statisticians who were in part funded by the U.S. government, one of whom sits on the board of Zcash?

I think I have my answer BTW. We can close this topic.

Well funding and being boards is less important to me than lack of technical expertise

Anyways since no workgroups are jumping up let's move on

5. open ideas time

No rules here folks, go nuts

There is a subtopic Defcon workgroup, which is not relevant so early (for DC30) but if other event discussion exists, should we review?

For example progress on Monerokon or the Puerto Rico event?

So I have read a post in reddit. (reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/pqm1tq…medium=android_app&utm_source=share) how you could send messages via TX multiply them by 10^12 and read them as ASCII characters. I found that idea cool, my question is would it be possible to develop a client in wich someone can chat with another person via this? Where the chat is secured by the xmr

blockchain? A wallet for each account there deposit like 0.01 xmr and you can chat and the messages arrive to the other persons account wallet for that client? Or are the fees to high for this

There was a third event as well, maybe we were counting 33C3?

I mean 37C3.

msvb-lab: I think this late in the meeting we should keep this to monero-events, but perhaps an effort for regular meetings there would be a good idea

Okay, then we cancel the Defcon workgroup topic.

I would like to suggest monero talks' CCS proposal to consider spreading the word about the current recruiting effort the community is organizing

Since Doug will be doing outreach through their YT channel

That might be a good addition

msvb-lab: We can just move the discussion to that channel for general chat as the meeting ends in less than 10 mins

sosse: I think in general Monero developers are cold on this idea due to the possibility of blockchain bloat. Monero suffers particularly from blockchain bloat compared to other coins since even "light wallets" must scan the entire blockchain due to privacy.

What is bloat?

netrik182: I think this is OK to share publicly: I am already in contact with Sunita about this. She reached out to me.

sosse: Too many "unnecessary" transactions on the blockchain.

<netrik182> "I would like to suggest monero..." <- Good idea! You should reach out to Doug on this I think, maybe get him to reach out to Rucknium or get him to read the pinned reddit post

Regarding the messaging idea I agree it is possible in the low fee environment but I don't think it would be sustainable or wise from a bloat perspective

Anyways, I have to run pretty soon

The final agenda item is agreeing next meeting

I have a controversial idea:

Oh ok. We can close

I suggest same day/time in 2 weeks

I will make an effort to post logs, agenda and spread the word once I have access to my accounts tomorrow if no one else has done those tasks

Maybe I will throw it out there and people can think about it. Well, actually it is not my idea, or is not new anyway. But I think it could be a good idea to have a "manager" or "director" role for MRL. It is discussed here in the comments:

Sure, 2 weeks sounds good

carrington[m]: Sounds good. Saturday 2 Oct @ 1800 UTC.

Will post on MO.

Thanks all for coming. Conversations can of course continue on anything discussed in the meeting slot

Great job moderating carrington!

> Where the chat is secured by the xmr blockchain?... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…d52fd18fdfaf7afcc887c2c82bf98b92f39)

there is a monopoly on domain names, but thats solved by unstoppable domains, no need for monero to solve this

You can buy domain names without government ID, so it isn't a state monopoly, unlike banking, Paypal, Western Union, etc.

Unstoppable Domains is hosted on ETH, AFAIK. And ETH is known to be bloated.

anarkiocrypto[m]: I also think that domain purchase is one-time transaction and that's it. Not much bloat, really. Don't have to have a tx for every http request, I'm pretty sure.

anarkiocrypto: are you sure you can buy a domain without registering your name?

also monopoly does not mean you need to provide your ID, it means it is in the hand of one authority. As far as i know DNS names are the buissness of ICANN and that is a state monopoly

but pls correct my if i am wrong here

also namecoin solves this also pretty well as far as i know

the point is there are decentralized solutions to that :D

atomfried: Look into Njalla

State monopoly bans people who can't get ID (like me) from accessing services like banking, formal jobs, formal rental contracts, etc. so it is a monopoly. Fortunately the gray market helps me to find work, apartments, healthcare for cash, etc. without ID but 99.9% of the market is gatekept by KYC (which is a state monopoly, because only the state can print IDs and when it refuses, there are no alternative options).

Regarding domain names – I don't think Monero supports OP Return or similar (and shouldn't for fungibility/bloat reasons).

Rucknium[m]: thanks a lot, will have alook

s/alook/a look/

Looks like Monero has tx_extra which is an encrypted OP Return and is used e.g. in mining pools and for multisig (forum.monero.space/d/38-should-we-remove-tx-extra) but still wouldn't use it for data storage (e.g. domains, messages). Monero is money.

anarkiocrypto: I believe there has been talk of eliminating tx_extra since it harms transaction uniformity.