16:06:07 <plowsof> https://ccs.getmonero.org/funding-required/ animated video proposal got a +35 xmr donation 👀
16:09:03 <plowsof> perhaps the worst written proposal i've ever seen , doesn't even link to the 'document' that describes what their proposal will actually produce (and its hosted on google docs anyway), was being buffed with micro transactions in the beginning by the proposers (to make it seem that 80 people donated) and now finally, it actually , got funded. let us all learn from this and stop caring about our well written ccs proposals 
16:12:48 <ooo123ooo1234567> is it sarcasm ?
16:13:21 <plowsof> 10% sarcasm 
16:15:13 <interloper[m]> sarcasm? naaaah
16:18:02 <ooo123ooo1234567> "What keeps Monero working?" working code; "How does the network stay up to date?" an interesting question
16:18:15 <ooo123ooo1234567> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TIhaJwy81lNxo-w9ySQIV8Ycp_kaWl5DLWqIgHsfHug/edit#, from this doc for video scripts
16:20:20 <plowsof> the microdonations part is true at least in the beginning, maybe someone else did it, i don't mind, just funny to see 
16:24:34 <plowsof> make proposal : send 80 * 0.00000000001 transactions . thank everyone for the support 
16:25:01 <ooo123ooo1234567> if it's so easy then try yourself
16:26:24 <ooo123ooo1234567> But there is a way to prevent such cheating, but it isn't the most important problem currently
16:26:33 <ooo123ooo1234567> s/But/There/, s/there//
16:27:28 <ooo123ooo1234567> plowsof: how would you prevent such cheating in the most ideal way ?
16:27:46 <plowsof> there is a 1 year long waiting list before an idea will get put forward for funding.. enough time for me to churn some outputs 
16:29:20 <plowsof> to prevent spamming of donations? can just implement a min amount in usd equivalent or monero to not += the contributor count , but then people would complain their 10 cent donation isn't counted 
16:30:56 <nioc> the average donation was just under 0.1
16:31:10 <ooo123ooo1234567> given all donations are public again (view key isn't available currently), what anti-cheat to use ?
16:31:23 <plowsof> the viewkey is available 
16:32:17 <plowsof> ccs 
16:32:17 <plowsof> svk: 645936bdbb2e13830f587351b73b226c7c107ff94e5db0e0dd19c661cd657b0a
16:32:18 <plowsof> pa: 43H2k6iDgyfNo4HzgQKF8ABALWGpRz9Ez6uexXLGFyuC32SevoaGUiKWbebSkqy5EzdkviwJ4NQwDHkxVxHceUtLBzBjoTV
16:33:00 <ooo123ooo1234567> source ?
16:33:30 <plowsof> unpublished, but permission granted to share some months ago 
16:34:02 <ooo123ooo1234567> it means not publicly available
16:34:49 <plowsof> it made the rounds here months ago too, its just not listed anywhere, 
16:35:08 <plowsof> https://github.com/moneroexamples/generic-xmr-scanner/commit/5f9d5bad203ae79fdbfc39d4cf6e046ba3bbe2e2
16:35:11 <ooo123ooo1234567> "was being buffed with micro transactions in the beginning by the proposers (to make it seem that 80 people donated)" this problem doesn't exist with public view key; yes / no ?
16:40:09 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "to prevent spamming of donations..." <- in the worst it could be 50% self-donation with arbitrary split, what to do in this case ?
16:42:17 <plowsof> no anti cheat would prevent this, always ways to get around it i guess (unless the contributor number is hidden on the site) . i was just making an observation (looking at the transactions in front of me, and comparing it to how others get funded) (i don't mind) , real people have donated clearly 
16:42:44 <ooo123ooo1234567> plowsof: are you sure ?
16:42:56 <ooo123ooo1234567> * "no anti cheat would prevent this" are you
16:43:34 <plowsof> KYC to have contributor += 1 
16:44:36 <ooo123ooo1234567> only solutions compatible with anonymity of participants are interesting, KYC isn't ok
16:45:15 <plowsof> impose a minimum amount (like the bounties site do to stop comments being spammed) 
16:46:10 <ooo123ooo1234567> source ?
16:48:39 <plowsof> https://github.com/t-900-a/fider-monero-bot/blob/fab5f0faad8387291f17926254d5fb9cd69a513b/process-monero/main.go#L103
16:52:36 <ooo123ooo1234567> that threshold is a workaround for poor UI that can't display a lot of comments properly, it isn't an anti-cheat
16:54:33 <ofrnxmr[m]1> People are willing to take financial losses to gain notoriety. 
16:54:33 <ofrnxmr[m]1> I think the only anti cheat is having the project vetted at the door.
16:54:33 <ofrnxmr[m]1> If ccs wants to be decentralized, then there should be no barrier to entry and people should be allowed to donate as much to themselves as they want 
16:54:48 <ofrnxmr[m]1> If it is centralized, scams should be shut down as soon as they are exposed 
16:56:07 <ofrnxmr[m]1> There's no reason they have to pay out the money. Meaning, if you donate to yourself to push through some bullshit, your money will end up with the general fund or another ccs voted on by community
16:56:33 <ofrnxmr[m]1> If its decentralized.. and you want to fund yourself.. go right ahead.
17:05:22 <rbrunner> Does that trick really work? Donating 100 times a piconero at the start of a CCS, and people think, hey, best thing since sliced bread it seems, I will also donate?
17:05:39 <rbrunner> Maybe there are submitters who try, but people don't fall for it?
17:06:40 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Most people probably dont fall for it. But im sure there are people that lie and say "I raised 35 xmr from 100 people in only x amount of time" on their resume 
17:06:48 <ofrnxmr[m]1> "I work for monero"
17:09:35 <rbrunner> To apply working at some random shitcoin with that resume? :)
17:10:44 <ooo123ooo1234567> <rbrunner> "Does that trick really work..." <- Probably yes, but not directly
17:11:40 <ofrnxmr[m]1> rbrunner: That or to go around giving seminars with their videos 😅
17:12:45 <ofrnxmr[m]1> I dont think people donate because other people are.
17:12:45 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Usually, if I see a LOW number if donators on a good project that is far from its goal, ill donate.
17:12:45 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Of there are a lot of donators, you feel like "my donation doesnt make a difference"
17:13:10 <rbrunner> ooo123ooo1234567: What possible kind of inderect effects do you see here at work?
17:13:16 <rbrunner> *indirect
17:13:20 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Fluffying the numbers is marketing, but at a certain point becomes counter productive to gaining traction 
17:48:53 <ooo123ooo1234567> <rbrunner> "ooo123ooo1234567: What possible..." <- any speculations based on these numbers
18:01:13 <ooo123ooo1234567> project goal -> the next obstacle -> task description (at least should be verifiable and helpful for project goal)-> reward funding (add incentive to solve task, tasks with good verifiable description are supposed to be more attractive) -> submitted solutions (public log of incremental work done by participants, motivate to submit solutions asap) -> reward split (unbiased judgement, punish incorrect solutions / spam); 
18:03:15 <ooo123ooo1234567> with some spam protection it should be compatible with anonymity of participants
18:13:16 <ooo123ooo1234567> https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/8061#issuecomment-1013368354, an example of reward split that isn't present by default anywhere currently
18:17:46 <ooo123ooo1234567> "If someone suggests a significant refactor that is better than what I've done and uses very little of my code ..." and this rule should be announced before beginning of the bounty, not after (as it was with atomic swap)
19:08:18 <plowsof> this proposal would have benefited from some ''competition", anon dev, forked some project, puts a sales pitch with buzz words in the proposal, goes awol for 7 months, doesn't implement what was promised.. instead says ' that would take some work, ill do something else ' https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/xmrsale-2021.html
19:09:28 <plowsof> if you ever see 'future work / not milestones' written in a proposal , consider it a fairy tale 
19:16:42 <ooo123ooo1234567> any task would benefit from competition, including seraphis / mining centralization problem / privacy issues with ring signatures / any UI / any maintenance / any bug fixes
19:17:10 <ooo123ooo1234567> * bug fixes / cryptography audit
19:18:36 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "this proposal would have..." <- one more payment processor ?
19:19:02 <ooo123ooo1234567> certainly the most important and hardest problem in monero
19:19:16 <ooo123ooo1234567> * in monero judging by number of attempts to build it
19:19:31 <ooo123ooo1234567> * in monero judging by number of attempts to solve it
19:20:33 <chesterfield[m]> There needs to be one payment processor per merchant
19:20:52 <chesterfield[m]> Unique payment processor
19:20:56 <chesterfield[m]> This helps with privacy
19:21:17 <chesterfield[m]> Wow it’s not easy being a genius
19:22:31 <plowsof> i dont agree with a true 'bounty' model (to much incentive to 'get er done / merged' without enough time for testing e.g. p2pool integration in the gui which has some issues), i would rather see small periods of 'none compete' with regular updates on work
19:23:58 <ofrnxmr[m]1> For bounty it should be like IRS does
19:23:58 <ofrnxmr[m]1> You come up with your solutions and only the best solution is paid out.
19:23:58 <ofrnxmr[m]1> If only one solution is put forth, perhaps merged, paid half and the rest if no others come forth with 3-6 months 
19:26:01 <ofrnxmr[m]1> If a better solution is found, pay the other half the the better solution and then pull some funds from general fund (or scam ccs) to cover the new submission bounty
19:38:11 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "i dont agree with a true 'bounty..." <- bounties.monero.social - no concurrent participation / no competition, no reward split; what competition are you talking about ?
19:39:05 <plowsof> Paint my fence. the first person to paint my fence wins the bounty 
19:39:49 <ooo123ooo1234567> No. task -> solutions -> reward split; 
19:40:23 <plowsof> yes i agree with task -> solutions -> reward split
19:40:25 <ooo123ooo1234567> there is a freedom in task description (precision, how to verify, how to compare different solutions), in reward amount; reward split can't be removed
19:49:54 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "i dont agree with a true 'bounty..." <- fairness isn't achievable without competition
19:58:44 <plowsof> the viewtags example is fair because , its 'done already' and there is/was a reward to 'do it better' / review it. i just don't want duplication of effort to the point where its like a race , and those contestants could have been working on something else 
20:01:23 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "i dont agree with a true 'bounty..." <- merge of poor patches is a problem of review process which doesn't have any incentive currently
20:05:13 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "the viewtags example is fair..." <- No. it isn't fair, there was no reward to 'do it better' / review before approval from UkoeHB, but it's an example in the right direction
20:05:33 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "the viewtags example is fair..." <- indeed, race would be very harmful for that scammer
20:05:41 <ooo123ooo1234567> * harmful for profit of that scammer
20:07:55 <ooo123ooo1234567> " i just don't want duplication of effort to the point where its like a race ..." indeed, duplication of efforts with all these payment processors is a good counterexample for your concern
20:08:34 <ooo123ooo1234567> in practice lack of formal competition leads to duplication of efforts, see ?
20:10:23 <ooo123ooo1234567> also it's a decision (based on their skills / motivation / etc) of those who will implement something whether to duplicate efforts or not
20:10:54 <ooo123ooo1234567> sometimes it makes sense to repeat some work in order to find deep issue and better solution
20:19:24 <plowsof> can i not just get life changing money every other month and be left alone in peace? 
20:23:55 <ooo123ooo1234567> if development process is working then just use monero and don't worry about it's internal problems
20:24:38 <ooo123ooo1234567> if it doesn't work and it's know how to improve it then it makes sense to compete in order to implement better solution and get reward for it
20:45:58 <ooo123ooo1234567> <plowsof> "can i not just get life changing..." <- grants from govt is a way to achieve both without a compromise
23:30:35 <qwerty[m]1> https://www.communityworkgroup.org/ USES GOOGLE COOKIES TO SPY ON YOU!!!!!
23:41:35 <ofrnxmr[m]1> sgp_ @sgp_:monero.social: 
23:41:35 <plowsof> delete the _ga cookie? i think people who are concerned about that have uber opsec anyway where no js / cookies are allowed . also you are registered using the monero .social matrix server? aren't they the ones you are warning us about spying on you? 
23:42:01 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Shouldn't be "we share info with Google" on a monero website 
23:42:19 <plowsof> ofrnxmr[m]1: lol true 
23:43:15 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Information about your use of this site is shared with Google.
23:43:15 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Whoever read this and thought it would be acceptable to implement, is a questionable person.  
23:45:40 <ofrnxmr[m]1> "The Monero Marketing Workgorup became the Monero Community Workgroup during the first Community Workgroup meeting on 18 June "
23:45:40 <ofrnxmr[m]1> Workgorup
23:55:51 <qwerty[m]1> who owns the website?