<carrington[m]> "Did you see Moxie's article..." <- This is the exact reason why Ethereum will also fail to achieve scalability. Of course they can change their consensus to a more centralised PoS scheme, they can implement side chains and Layer 2 solutions, but interacting with all of this is done through centralized services since noone will or can run a node for a bazillion side chain solutions.

I am a big fan of federation similar on how IRC or Matrix are doing it for chatting. It is a compromise between centralization, speed and protocol development schema.

Revuo Issue 103: Jan 09-16, 2022. localmonero.co/revuo/weekly/103

I'm very sorry but it looks like I might be forced offline in the next few hours. If people would still like the regular meeting, a volunteer to moderate will be needed

I think we should still have the meeting. monerobull ?

<Rucknium[m]1> "I think we should still have the..." <- huh?

uh sure

🕓️

hello everyone, the meeting starts now :)

hi

hello

hey :)

I don't know how its usually handled but I think we jump straight to the CCS updates, or does anyone have something to say about the community highlights

?

Hi :)

I think you're supposed to follow agenda of monero-project/meta #648

Hi

hello

I have a quick point to make myself outside of announced agenda

binaryFate: I know. i guess we can mention that localmonero published their weekly report.

* I know. i guess we can mention that localmonero published their weekly report today

monero moon is also back on

Can I make my point? Sorry I am not sure I can stay all the hour

sure go ahead

Thanks! As you may know I am escrowing the Monero general fund money.

I plan to release a transparency report soon, hopefully within the next week or two.

(Same as I did last June and before that, check out the website for references)

sounds good :)

Different topic but starting from last September, Globee stopped sponsoring the server for the website

We had one day of downtime before finding out the invoice wasn't paid, for those who recal

Anyway, since then I have paid for the website personally using my credit card

It's precisely 2k$ per month, which now amounts to 10k$ that I've paid.

binaryFate: did they just stop paying for it without a notice?

At the time yes, and actually again the next month until we understood not to rely on them, but that's not the topic.

I will repay myself using XMR from the general fund next few days, for those 10k$

I was keen to make that public in advance so nobody freaks out, since I'm basically going to send money myself from GF to my personal wallet. If anybody has an issue with this let me know.

make sure to make it real clear what happened in the report

That's it, thanks.

Will do.

maybe even a short separate reddit post

moving on, do we have any CCS updates?

currently only monerokon needs funding and sits at 10.07 xmr out of 328

we also now know haveno development will require around 200k$ and starts raising money soon

since it will be a for-profit exchange, they plan on using parts of future profits to fund monero development as a thank you

nothing really official right now, just letting you guys know

My CCS update: OSPEAD research is at a bit of a pause while I catch up on BCH work. I have a draft of part of the OSPEAD technical specification and I can send it to anyone if they want to have a look and/or give feedback.

I will work on a version of it that is more layperson-friendly and release it publicly in the near future.

I see that elizabeth is here. perhaps we could jump to addressing b. eth-xmr atomic swap ?

of course. theres also been a post on reddit just today demanding eth-xmr to be moved to funding

s/of course. theres also been a post on reddit just today demanding eth-xmr to be moved to funding/of course. theres also been a post on reddit just today asking for eth-xmr to be moved to funding/

hey everyone, there's been a lot of discussion on the licensing for the swap proposal. like I mentioned on the PR, I'd like to move forward with GPL if possible (as some code will need to be rewritten for a license change to be possible). happy to add a section to the proposal saying if requested later on I'll change it to LGPL

but overall this seems to be a larger discussion that needs to be had about licensing

does anyone know how licensing is usually handled with CCS funded projects?

"The CCS is intentionally left as informal as possible. This allows for flexibility of the system, and keeps things from being red taped into oblivion."

but

"All work must be licensed permissively at all stages of the proposal. There is no time where your work can be licensed under a restrictive license (even as you're working on it). Your proposal will be terminated if this is not remedied."

GPL > LGPL

>All work must be licensed permissively at all stages of the proposal. There is no time where your work can be licensed under a restrictive license (even as you're working on it). Your proposal will be terminated if this is not remedied.

LGPL just leads to foss code ending up in closed source projects, right?

According to the official rules:

"permissive license" is fairly vague. Deliberately, I think.

do we want to keep discussing this or move on?

ajs_[m]: I admit I hadn't read this before, my bad

does LGPL count as permissive? if so I can prioritize changing the license. I'm guessing GPL is not permissive

monerobull[m]1: yeah, this is why I prefer GPL generally

any other CCS related updates?

do we have any workgroup reports?

meeting of #monero-events at 18:00 UTC

so a little over an hour

how much longer can the monerokon CCS stay open?

monerobull[m]1: i think i set a loose deadline for mid-Feb. if the goal was not reached, we would cancel 2022 event, and roll funds over to a 2023 fund.

the original one in 2019 stayed open for a long time

and that was during a bear market so................

i will try and make a reddit post this week to stir up some interest and get some more donations. it's nice to see there are 27 contributions so far though - thanks to everyone that has donated

midipoet: let's hope it gets reached

monerobull[m]1: yes, i am hopeful as well.

I think this particular meeting is close to being done. does anyone want to mention anything not on the agenda?

What I am concerned about with the ETH<>XMR proposal is that the licensing discussion is holding things up. I think it would be fine to kick the can down the road and just let this go to funding. Determine licensing later.

Rucknium[m]1: i thought of suggesting something similar. perhaps a milestone could be built in to account for the licensing change that is required?

It is crucial that more devs be brought into the Monero ecosystem, and destruction of red tape is one of the reasons that Monero exists in the first place.

this would give some certainty to elizabeth[m] that the funding is there, as long as the licence is amended.

if change of licensing means the rewriting of some of the code will the amount of funding need to be changed?

<ajs_[m]> "en.wikipedia.org/wiki..." <- tbh I don't want to license as MIT/apache/BSD as I don't want my code ending up in some closed source (probably centralized) blockchain

nioc: it's a minimal amount of code that needs to be rewritten, only one function. so we don't need to change it

thx

I'd say mention the licensing thing in the CCS and go to funding. do we all agree?

why is there a hesitancy to allow a GPL licence (sorry if this has been asked before)?

Ultimately this is elizabeth 's project. Yes, the community can have some input, of course. This won't necessarily be the _only_ XMR<>ETH atomic swap implementation.

elizabeth: i get it and generally prefer GPL myself. i think that rule was put in place because of drama from contributor wanting to make a PR to monero code with a special licence

i think the licensing issue should be mentioned in the CCS, along with the rationale for choosing a licence (t minimum), but i don't see the great harm with GPL

i too think forcing a license that allows the code to be used in closed source projects is hella weird

seeing this is not related to core code, this rule should be reconsidered generally imo

since there are no objections I think its safe to assume we reached consensus to move noots CCS to funding once the licensing is mentioned

anything else?

there should be a PR updating the rule if there is consensus to allow copyleft for non monero specific code

monerobull[m]1: sounds good, I'll add that in

next meeting same time same day, two weeks from now?

If someone has questions about my CCS proposal, I will be happy to answer them

make a PR updating repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-front/-/tree/master/what-is-ccs and we can have a threaded discussion

<v1docq47> "If someone has questions about..." <- I think you once used one of my edits <3

anyways. that's the meeting. next ones on the 30th of January.

monerobull[m]1: thx for running the meeting on such short notice

time of the next meeting?

can someone post the chatlog? I'm on my phone right now

Thanks for running monerobull

nioc: 16:00 UTC

thank you!

thanks for coming everyone, we were definitely productive today

thanks monerobull[m]1

👍

I made a PR modifying the permissive license rule repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-front/-/merge_requests/34

Thanks monerobull

ajs_[m]: repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-front/-/merge_requests/33 exists already

just someone has to merge it

luigi1111 maybe ^^

ajs_[m]: sorry, your PR is about something else

didn't look properly at the changes

only saw the title

eth-xmr atomic swaps has been moved to funding required