11:17:17 <jberman[m]> pretty good try, I think some of his points make sense too. some of them don't also, but he codes pretty good so would be nice to see him stick around
11:33:45 <dsc_> what joshhavepigdog just said made my eyes bleed
11:35:07 <dsc_> "Clearly you are someone special/OP maybe even Sarang Noether tier or beyond."
11:35:10 <dsc_> "Ooo, I think you might be the most overpowered person/dev/security guy in here now."
11:35:37 <dsc_> what kind of propaganda campaign is this lol
12:12:29 <merope> > wants pure merit/work to be rewarded
12:12:29 <merope> > thinks that a tool designed to improve mining profitability and thus the security of the network against attacks is clickbait
12:12:29 <merope> I think it's pretty obvious :D
13:00:48 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Maybe his idea to change the CCS is wrong, but I think his frustration with projects getting funded by hype/emotional appeal rather than raw utility is legitimate. I think he should just write his own CCS and compete for funding just like everyone else. 
13:00:48 <bridgerton[m]> Solar mining. Let’s be real, how many people actually set up solar rigs after that CCS lol. I mean maybe I’m wrong and tons of people used the completed research to set up solar miners, but I doubt it. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have been able to fund that CCS (people can use their money however they want to finance whatever cause they want), but I think there are bigger fish/issues to fry in Monero than solar
13:00:48 <bridgerton[m]> mining rigs. Ooo12 probably gets frustrated because he knows there are bigger issues to solve and he sees things which are of lesser consequence getting funded. 
13:00:48 <bridgerton[m]> Ooo12 complaining about it in here is probably not worthwhile though, he needs to clearly state what issues he can fix in a CCS and why it’s actually important relative to some of the other projects that get approved without hinderance for funding.
13:08:14 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I don’t see anyone else in here claiming they can do BP++ (which seems extremely complicated and difficult from an outsiders perspective) within one month’s time. 
13:08:14 <bridgerton[m]> Maybe ooo is just talking nonsense and he couldn’t make more progress on BP++ in a given timeframe than anyone else in here, but ooo12 has at least some credibility since he spotted (If my understanding is correct) a big flaw in multi-sig that everyone else in here seemed to miss. 
13:08:14 <bridgerton[m]> Correct me if I’m wrong but this ooo guy does have balls to say he can do BP++ in one month’s time and has proven a high degree of knowledge/skill from the whole multi-sig debacle. As an end user I don’t care about multi-sig (it’s unlikely I’ll ever use it in a meaningful way) but I understand its importance for certain use cases.
13:12:17 <rbrunner> Developing Monero for the most part involves teamwork. As a Monero dev, you work together with others. You have to, no way around it, in the absolute minimum you have to get your code reviewed by at least 1 other person.
13:13:02 <rbrunner> So, you may be the greatest C++, crypto and math wizzard walking on this planet, if you have difficulties with teamwork, well, that's a problem.
13:49:15 <r4v3r23[m]> <rbrunner> "So, you may be the greatest C++,..." <- the team should accomodate to the greatest C++, crypto, math wizzard. the goal here is the best digital cash, not to make a group of people feel good
13:59:08 <rbrunner> Yeah, ooo was definitely disturbing our Monero Dev Cuddle Club where we all strike our collective egos, making us feel good, and produce a little code now and then, so it did not become too obvious
14:00:01 <rbrunner> Couldn't have that :)
14:21:03 <dsc_> we should start an ooo fanclub
14:22:25 <dsc_> i heard he can do bp-plus-plus-extra-premium-plus in 4 days *if* he has an never-ending supply of hot pockets funded through his own CCS
14:23:08 <dsc_> in addition, we can commission a few paintings
14:37:20 <rbrunner> This reminds me a bit of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
15:04:23 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> My point exactly. I would say the guy ooo12 is pretty bad at communicating his concerns efficiently and in a palatable manner to you guys. It took 100s of messages for him to make a point that could’ve been the size of this message I’m sending now. He is pretty rude/abrasive as well. But acting like a beta wojak and being pouty with this guy isn’t any better. Having teamwork problems is inefficient and
15:04:23 <bridgerton[m]> leads to you guys despising him, but you can’t use this justify not merging his PRs etc.
15:05:27 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yeah he needs to work on communicating efficiently and in a palatable manner
15:06:18 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I never implied this. He was acting like a drama queen and spamming the dev chat you are correct.
15:10:38 <rbrunner> Well, two of their PRs *will* get merged and will go into the hardfork, despite all the hoopla. Agreed, after sitting there for months without proper review, but finally now.
15:12:45 <rbrunner> One of them against their will by the way, if I am not gravely misunderstanding them, but can't have all ...
15:13:46 <plowsof> thanks for looking at this on rbrunner, i believe 1 of the 2 will be this? https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/8426
15:16:45 <rbrunner> Yes. And the other is the almost-famous-now 8149 of course: https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/8149
15:25:56 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> The guy hasn’t communicated very clearly in here, but he does seem competent.
15:26:04 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Haha
15:26:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> Much more has already been merged over the years 
15:28:17 <r4v3r23[m]> <rbrunner> "Yeah, ooo was definitely..." <- sarcasm aside, some one doesn't have to be a "team player" to give value to the project
15:31:38 <rbrunner> I think it's easy to considerably underestimate the complexity of the question to find a "modus vivendi" between ooo and pretty much all the rest of the dev community
15:34:10 <r4v3r23[m]> not saying he doesn't need to do his part at expressing himself better
15:35:28 <rbrunner> For them, this "getting to express themselves better" might be a challenge at least a magnitude more difficult than writing code for Monero.
15:36:10 <ofrnxmr[m]> I dont think its so difficult.
15:36:10 <ofrnxmr[m]> Ooo doesnt want to talk 
15:37:22 <ofrnxmr[m]> He wants to be confident that when he sits in his lab and pulls all nighters doing nerd shit for monero, that it will get proper reviews by those getting paid to review 
15:37:23 <r4v3r23[m]> or he doesn't want to conform to the way things are done here
15:37:55 <r4v3r23[m]> but if he truly has valuable insights then there needs to be some accomodation
15:38:19 <nioc> lack of reviewers is not a new issue
15:38:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> He comes and goes. Comes with code, solutions or with anger. Doesn't usually stick around otherwise
15:38:21 <rbrunner> "some accomodation" puts a smile on my face.
15:38:40 <r4v3r23[m]> :)
15:48:52 <rbrunner> Maybe not many people noticed, but I and ofrnxmr[m] had a chat with ooo that went over 3 hours, on July 1, about various topics, communication among them: https://libera.monerologs.net/monero-community/20220701#c115574
15:50:23 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yeah I backread everything
15:52:00 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> At first I thought ooo12 was a troll until I got the full scoop about how he solved a problem and others took credit for it lmao. But it’s also partially his own fault, because he effectively just created pull requests and lurked without ever commenting in the matrix channels lol
15:52:19 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’d never heard of this guy or any of his PRs until he started kicking up a storm haha
15:53:10 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> He seems pretty skilled, just a bit of a derper who has an abrasive personality but I think having him in the team is a healthy development.
15:54:47 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> If everyone is happy chappies in here and nonconfrontational it benefits the community to have an odd ball like this guy who isn’t scared to speak his mind. It might piss people off, but people can just ignore this guy.
15:57:25 <r4v3r23[m]> he has good points re: CCS
15:58:13 <r4v3r23[m]> bridgerton[m]: agree 100% i understand his mindset
15:58:48 <r4v3r23[m]> some people just dont want to make friends. he clearly gives a fuck about monero and that should count more than being nice
15:59:53 <Rucknium[m]> "Abrasive personality" is missing the point. ooo123 says that he/she/they wants to contribute under the condition that there is a bounties-based competition set up with all competitors working on the same problem. _Maybe_ something like that could be set up if Monero had five times the number of developers its has now. The Monero Project doesn't have that, so ooo123's conditions cannot be met. That's an impasse in negotiations that
15:59:53 <Rucknium[m]> cannot be overcome. 
16:00:05 <Rucknium[m]> Unfortunately, that's the end of the story unless ooo123 wants to change the conditions.
16:00:56 <Rucknium[m]> You need 5 times the number of developers + those developers need to accept that they have a high probability of not being paid when they lose the competition.
16:01:19 <Rucknium[m]> The CCS process is certainly not perfect as it is.
16:03:12 <Rucknium[m]> And HackerOne bounties are too low in value.
16:03:26 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I agree with everything you have said Rucknium.
16:03:51 <dsc_> ooo makes PRs without any description/information 
16:04:13 <dsc_> sorry, this is not how open source development works
16:04:21 <dsc_> i dont care if he is jesus himself
16:04:37 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> If ooo12 wants he can create a website/system that competes with both the CCS and bug bounties but to it will be difficult getting other devs and users to finance this new competing source of funding.
16:04:51 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Or he can make his own CCS
16:04:56 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Proposal
16:05:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> Its not about money
16:05:07 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I don’t understand why he doesn’t. He just has to explain it perfectly.
16:06:07 <rbrunner> I think ofrnxmr[m] expressed it well: "he sits in his lab and pulls all nighters doing nerd shit for monero" In my view, that's their thing, mainly.
16:06:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> Its not about money. He has and he's left more xmr on the table than he has taken
16:06:21 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> He is free to do so. Speech is not compelled. It might trigger you and be a bad group development practice, but in my opinion it’s stilly to say someone can’t patiticiapte just because they don’t explain their work lol
16:06:58 <dsc_> why are we still talking about ooo? who is joshhavepigdog? Just a regular monero user, like he says? Then why does he care so much about discussing some random person who created 2 ill formatted PRs?
16:07:22 <ofrnxmr[m]> Not sure who Josh is 🤷‍♂️
16:07:22 <ofrnxmr[m]> Slow Sunday?
16:07:29 <dsc_> in addition ooo has been DoS'ing both dev chat, and community chat
16:07:47 <ofrnxmr[m]> dsc_: And more like 15 or so, js. 3 that weren't merged 
16:08:10 <dsc_> perhaps he developed some kind of cult following? I dont understand
16:08:15 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> It is about money though. He has beef with the current Crowdfunding system. He shouldn’t. If he explains himself and his reasoning has merit he can get the financing. If the average Monero voter is unfortunately more concerned with non-core related projects than that is a tragic situation in my opinion and like ooo12 but it may be a reality unfortunately.
16:08:30 <rbrunner> Don't forget the dog and the pig of Josh
16:08:36 <ofrnxmr[m]> No, it isnt about money. Its about priorities
16:08:44 <dsc_> who is josh.
16:08:51 <dsc_> does he have skin in the game? :P
16:09:05 <dsc_> im so confused.
16:09:23 <ofrnxmr[m]> He's using telegram or something,  so i doubt it
16:09:39 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yeah I’m just an average idiotic Monero user. I’m not as smart as you guys. This 100% true. But you are making an appeal to authority rather than the soundness of logic.
16:10:15 <dsc_> you have no idea what you are talking about
16:10:52 <dsc_> maybe pick up a programming book, participate in FOSS communities, come back if you have something to contribute
16:11:19 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> This is true. That’s why the discussion has moved to here from the dev channel to avoid distracting work on the code.
16:12:01 <dsc_> so dont claim ooo is some kind of god coder
16:12:14 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> What’s your point? You are trying to dunk on me because I’m not a dev? Ok you’re right, but you haven’t addressed any real issues with ooo12 contributing to the project.
16:12:57 <dsc_> Yes I am dunking on you because you claim ooo is "sarang noether tier" and "best dev/sec guy around" whilst you have no software skills yourself
16:12:57 <rbrunner> Not explaining PRs is a real issue. Maybe hard to grasp in its full glory for non-dev. (No, not an appeal to authority.)
16:13:34 <ofrnxmr[m]> The thing with the PR's were I think they were explained before they were submit 
16:13:56 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Ok fair enough. I’m not knowledgeable about contributing to group dev work.
16:14:40 <ofrnxmr[m]> But yes, the pr's themselves were blank and left nothing to go off of
16:15:04 <ofrnxmr[m]> For any random reviewer to stroll by.
16:15:04 <ofrnxmr[m]> 7760 was an exploit though.
16:15:08 <dsc_> FOSS follows a certain workflow, deviate from it, you get comments from your peers - its normal
16:15:32 <dsc_> Monero has even stricter workflows because it involves money
16:15:53 <ofrnxmr[m]> So, perhaps it wasnt explained because they knew about what it was fixing? Same with multisig. It was submit through hackerone and everything was explained to koe and vtnerd behind the scenes
16:17:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> Im not sure how to reproduce, but ive had it happen multiple times. Without 7760 using ssl would eventually deadlock my node
16:18:26 <rbrunner> Yes, and after a proper review it will finally get merged, as I mentioned already. I never ever saw somebody shooting against the code itself
16:18:52 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Did you catch any of the bugs that ooo12 did? Look I’m not trying to be an ooo12 simp. And Sarang Noether tier could be uninformed outsider take. I haven’t seen anyone try to speedrun something bp++ tier though. Of course a speed run done haphazardly is bad.
16:18:59 <rbrunner> Well, other than redefining std::string :)
16:19:18 <dsc_> "Did you catch any of the bugs that ooo12 did?" <== what are you trying to say, josh?
16:20:17 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I apologize if I have offended you due to my ignorance of FOSS practices. I’m just an outsider looking in and I think some of the stuff the guy said and what he did makes sense. We may have to agree to disagree.
16:21:16 <rbrunner> I can easily imagine that for outsiders "looking in" it may look very different to an "insiders's look"
16:23:05 <dsc_> "you are making an appeal to authority rather than the soundness of logic"
16:23:08 <dsc_> "Did you catch any of the bugs that ooo12 did?"
16:23:12 <dsc_> who is josh, seriously.
16:23:14 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/7482
16:23:14 <ofrnxmr[m]> An example of what 7760 fixes 
16:23:56 <ofrnxmr[m]> "this happens so frequently I have to schedule monerod to restart every hour in the hopes that the service remains useful, but just recently I noticed the "bug" or whatever it is occurring after the node had 9 minutes of uptime."
16:25:44 <dsc_> yes, p2p / networking has issues
16:26:41 <dsc_> see also https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2018-0637/
16:27:02 <dsc_> thats not the point 
16:27:07 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’m saying that this guy made contributions to the code that no one else caught/did unless my understanding of events is incorrect. He may have contributed in a way that is not compatible with FOSS practices, but he did make a unique contribution, no? Is it not worth tolerating this guy? I’m not on the dev team like you guys are (I am a rube who has not contributed a single line of code), so like you said I
16:27:07 <bridgerton[m]> have no say. I just doubt that it’s a good idea to drive away people who can contribute to critical code because they don’t follow good practices.
16:28:06 <ofrnxmr[m]> Josh, dont worry. We havent driven him away.
16:28:44 <ofrnxmr[m]> What was driving him away was having a vulnerable nrework while paying pepole to review spelling mistakes 
16:28:49 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I am a rube, who thinks Monero is the best form of money currently in existence. It is important to me.
16:28:59 <ofrnxmr[m]> Or rather, what drove him to talking instead of working 
16:29:42 <r4v3r23[m]> > <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> https://github.com/monero-project/monero/issues/7482
16:29:42 <r4v3r23[m]> > 
16:29:42 <r4v3r23[m]> > An example of what 7760 fixes 
16:29:42 <r4v3r23[m]> monerujo had a bug that would kick you out of wallet on login
16:29:50 <Rucknium[m]> joshhavepigdog: I found a substantial privacy issue with Monero no one else had found, submitted it to HackerOne, faced strong skepticism of my claims, persisted, submitted a CCS proposal, and got funded. I accepted the existing structure and made my contribution feasible. ooo123 wants a structure that is not feasible at the moment. Story ends.
16:30:01 <r4v3r23[m]> ever since i started using selsta's node running 77600 it has never happened
16:30:59 <ofrnxmr[m]> Rucknium:  I think you misunderstand ooo's issues.
16:31:00 <dsc_> r4v3r23[m]: anecdotal, the code changes are large, they can include exploits / vulnerabilities - so its very suspicious if a *new* coder adopts this "special workflow"
16:31:19 <ofrnxmr[m]> Again, its not about his personal pay but about work completion priorities or lackthereof 
16:31:48 <ofrnxmr[m]> dsc_: he has been submitting code for years as an anon 
16:31:48 <r4v3r23[m]> dsc_: just pointing out my experience. 7760 & 7999 have made a substantial difference in node connection stability
16:31:53 <dsc_> im starting to believe this is some kind of attack on monero
16:32:02 <dsc_> incl. this 'josh' person
16:32:33 <dsc_> i hope core will be careful in dealing with these big code changes
16:32:34 <r4v3r23[m]> whether the code in those PRs is up to snuff is the devs job
16:32:42 <ofrnxmr[m]> Josh is on telegram, I dont think he's.... um.. well versed in whats going on. Hut everyone is free to have an opinion
16:33:00 <r4v3r23[m]> dsc_: i think we have other members of the "community" we should be more worried about
16:33:46 <dsc_> this is how FOSS projects are attacked
16:33:51 <Rucknium[m]> ofrnxmr: If we had people who could complete all the high-impact work, that would be great. We don't have enough people. I've said we need to do more recruitment ( https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/pkg3d6/the_monero_project_should_actively_recruit/ ) and I'm on the MAGIC Monero committee in part to do more recruitment.
16:33:54 <dsc_> this is *exactly* how FOSS are attacked
16:33:57 <ofrnxmr[m]> dsc_:  selsta has been running the code for like a year. Its been in production but has lacked s formal review.  Sech and Jberman both reviewed. Jeffro and vtnerd as well. 
16:34:42 <dsc_> ofrnxmr[m]: again, i dont care what it fixes, if it is written by jesus himself, I care about how ooo conducts himself
16:34:50 <dsc_> this is all very fishy
16:34:53 <dsc_> my 2 cents
16:35:04 <r4v3r23[m]> so behaviour > code?
16:35:11 <dsc_> later guys, goodluck
16:35:20 <ofrnxmr[m]> But DSC, ooo doesnt conduct himself, usually.
16:35:20 <ofrnxmr[m]> Usually he tells someone in private what the problem us, fixes it, and goes back to looking for more 
16:35:57 <ofrnxmr[m]> Youd probably remember him under different names, he's been around for a while.
16:36:51 <ofrnxmr[m]> :( I just want my wow pr reviewed. I feel ooos pain
16:38:02 <ofrnxmr[m]> (Wowario already fixed it in his repo. Should just merge his fix. Either way, I hold my own hand when making tor tx on wow. No peers because setup instructions are wrong)
16:39:23 <ofrnxmr[m]> Also.. wow doesnt have the --proxy flag on release, I believe its on upcoming version?
16:39:23 <ofrnxmr[m]> That was written by ooo too. Jsyl
16:42:18 <ofrnxmr[m]> Rucknium: yea. We definitely need more recruitment. Recruitment requires money and money we dont have. Magic grants is a hard way to get money into the hands of an anon
16:43:24 <ofrnxmr[m]> And really, the donor would have to be ok with associating with monero in public
16:45:37 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://matrix.to/#/!LmpzSzbSMKFmPbCpHe:monero.social/$NFfs1bqsQxk_NhJZF_NDGqe2Z7TPMUcCBpRAdRCzOb4?via=monero.social&via=libera.chat&via=matrix.org
16:45:47 <Rucknium[m]> Recipients of MAGIC grants need to KYC to MAGIC. Donors can donate completely anonymously if they don't want a U.S. tax credit. Yes, MAGIC isn't a total solution. It's partly a way to get established non-anonymous cryptographers (and other specialists) to use their skills to help Monero.
16:46:34 <rbrunner> Wait, you mean MAGIC can't do magic? :)
16:48:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://matrix.to/#/!LmpzSzbSMKFmPbCpHe:monero.social/$hyMw9fmmQqh3qxI8VJ3fKFmdIlUVZXk7_uddT7pc7WQ?via=monero.social&via=libera.chat&via=matrix.org
16:54:14 <ofrnxmr[m]> All in all ruck, I think ooo plays and has played an important role in monero for quite some time. Not everybody has to be a nice guy.
16:54:14 <ofrnxmr[m]> And lest we forget, we paid a nice guy dev 45€/hr to attend 5 hrs of meetings and fix a spelling mistake from Github to GitHub. 
17:01:16 <ofrnxmr[m]> The latter part only relevant because 7760 went untouched but in the milestone report from nice guy dev was claimed 7760 to have been reviewed for 3hr.... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/04080377d2bfcf8f5096a2dc8bad41777e7a8a98)
17:03:10 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/7760#issuecomment-1144626397
17:04:34 <rbrunner> I think if we didn't have that "nice guy" we would have to invent him, it's such a nice diversion ...
17:05:06 <rbrunner> As in "Have you already seen that very, very bad example of CCS abuse?"
17:06:00 <rbrunner> People would probably be hard pressed to come up even with as little as a second convicing example ...
17:06:33 <rbrunner> I booked that under "shit happens" and marched on, frankly.
17:06:41 <ofrnxmr[m]> Haha, a false flag attack.
17:06:41 <ofrnxmr[m]> "Sorry soldier. I need this alt to take one for the team"
17:07:13 <rbrunner> ? Kind of insider joke?
17:08:17 <ofrnxmr[m]> Nah, just that nobody (except Josh) uses their real name. So mj can always come back as jm
17:08:29 <rbrunner> Lol
17:56:37 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Fair enough. I agree. If he wants a new structure so bad and no other devs/members think it’s a good idea, then he can build that funding option by himself and try to gain adoption there. If that is his staying point, change the CCS to how I want or I leave, then maybe he will have to leave because he is making a ridiculous request.
17:59:26 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Accurate summary. I don’t know what is going on on GitHub except for the ELI5 breakdown which I read and understand in the matrix channels. Dsc makes a good point that large anonymous code changes which aren’t explained by said user could be interpreted as a threat actor attempting to pass malicious code.
18:01:58 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Lol I’m too stupid to attack Monero even if I wanted to. I don’t know squat about programming and couldn’t understand the math used to verify pedersen commitments or bulletproofs. All I’m saying is that there might be a cost if we kick this ooo12 guy out. If he leaves because he throws a hissy fit and the ccs doesn’t change to how he wants it to be, then that is his choice.
18:04:46 <bridgerton[m]> s/good/bad/
18:05:40 <bridgerton[m]> s/user/contributor/
18:06:23 <bridgerton[m]> * his choice. People kicking him out and him leaving by choice are two separate things.
18:11:37 <plowsof> has been claiming 30 hours a week ccs for how many months, then says 'im considering ditching my job' lol don't hate the player hate the game?? apparently he was paid to work on the Monero GUI - i don't even know what c++ is and within a few days of looking at the issues / pr's on monero gui - i found many things i could review, and i even got a small fix merged. his excuse is 'i wasn't asked to review anything' 
18:13:01 <plowsof> i voluntarily organised a few meetings , of which me and several other people took part in , and he was the only one who received .. 5*45 euros 
18:19:03 <ofrnxmr[m]> Josh
18:19:03 <ofrnxmr[m]> You're misunderstanding.
18:19:03 <ofrnxmr[m]> Most agree from ooo to Luigi, with Kaya, spirobel and many others inbetween, that agree CCS has many issues.
18:22:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> Josh... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/9240b9a499edbdc9fa34c6daab7e95268c189959)
18:37:02 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> You’re talking about some else than ooo12 though, right?
18:41:03 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Sweet, I agree 100% with what you and Rucknium have said. My only concern was that some devs wanted to basically blacklist him or boot him out from the project and GitHub (not merge any of his pull requests just because they hate him) (my evidence for this concern was that People were pure trash talking about him and many have him muted as well lol). If he despawns from Monero by personal choice that is fine
18:41:03 <bridgerton[m]> and can’t be stopped. It seems like he won’t be kicked though so we all good now.
18:55:39 <ofrnxmr[m]> Devs like who, mj? Anyone else?
18:55:39 <ofrnxmr[m]> Koe, Jberman, Kaya, rbrunner, Jeffro, selsta and more are to _work_ with him.
18:56:40 <ofrnxmr[m]> Far from "blacklist him" or boot him out of the project. 
19:00:28 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Sweet
19:01:27 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’m happy. Not that my happiness should impact your guys decisions anyways haha. Thanks for clarifying and sorry for the roundabout conversation.
19:01:43 <ofrnxmr[m]> Sorry. I didnt meant to are "are to work with him"
19:01:43 <ofrnxmr[m]> But
19:01:43 <ofrnxmr[m]> "Are happy / willing to working with him"
19:02:16 <rbrunner> Yeah, not kicking them out. But I still see potential difficulties ahead.
19:02:37 <ofrnxmr[m]> No problem. As rbrunner said, one conversation was over 3hrs, but that was only one conversation
19:02:51 <rbrunner> If we really want to fully implement Seraphis and Jamtis, that will need veritable mountains of new code.
19:03:00 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Fair enough he is an interesting cat
19:03:25 <rbrunner> Implementing that is certainly not a one-person show. And where are we back to now with this? Exactly, at teamwork.
19:03:27 <ofrnxmr[m]> And ooo is interested in seraphis. But he feel like we did him wrong.
19:04:16 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> True, someone could solo speedrun but it needs to be reviewed by others before it gets merged.
19:04:41 <rbrunner> And you know, with big pieces of new code, you architect first, refine that to a design, and the implement. That gives *intense* and *close* teamwork.
19:04:54 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> It is what it is. As long as he doesn’t get kicked then what he does moving forward will be up to him. I was just surprised to see his claim about BP++ speed run haha
19:06:36 <rbrunner> You discuss things, listen with patience at times, make compromises, make sure no misunderstandings creep in, be all-around tolerant, and so on.
19:07:14 <rbrunner> Life as a dev working in a team.
19:07:44 <rbrunner> In our case with the added difficulty that we can't meet in person, and not all people know each other.
19:08:07 <rbrunner> This is difficult stuff even at the best of times.
19:08:10 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I could be wrong here, but wouldn’t it be theoretically possible for a single individual to do all of those things? They would be have to be dedicated and thorough, but I’m not aware of how it isn’t possible in theory. People would have to review it to get merged, certainly, but the initial cryptographic design and code implementation could theoretically be performed by a single individual no?
19:08:18 <ofrnxmr[m]> rbrunner: And not a job 
19:08:31 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yeah he might have a tough time on those things haha
19:08:36 <ofrnxmr[m]> Even at work meeting, youre lucky if half of the members show up
19:08:50 <rbrunner> Not sure I understand, not a job?
19:09:17 <ofrnxmr[m]> Like, not paid / employed to work on monero in a team
19:09:38 <rbrunner> Ah, I see, no boss around that can speak tough at times :)
19:09:46 <rbrunner> True
19:09:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> If you are working for an employer you are obligated to do certain things, dress certain ways, show to to meeting, instantly fired for offences 
19:10:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> Where here, people show to because they want to.
19:10:06 <ofrnxmr[m]> Show up*
19:10:32 <ofrnxmr[m]> They code for their own reasons, in ooo's case, I believe to test himself (and others)
19:10:38 <xmr-ack[m]> @joshhavepigdog which chat has ooo1’s BP++ claims?
19:10:51 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> It’s in here if you back read
19:11:04 <xmr-ack[m]> 👍🏼
19:11:04 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’ll do it for you and send through the verbatim quotes
19:11:11 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://libera.monerologs.net/monero-community/20220701#c115187
19:11:12 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Give me about 2 min
19:11:30 <rbrunner> About implementing Seraphis and Jamtis: Yes, I think it would not be completely out of question that somebody working fulltime for, say, 1 year, could pull that off
19:12:03 <rbrunner> But one person doing all the architecture and design decision alone, in a dark room, without getting feedback, would be extremely dangerous IMHO
19:12:27 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Gotcha. That was my point. In practice it seems most development here is collaborative, but even Koe seems to be roughly soloing Seraphis.
19:12:34 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Or at least it is brainchild?
19:13:06 <rbrunner> True, but I think he would readily accept a partner in work - if one was around, that is.
19:13:18 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I think ooo12 wants to do be this solo speed run dark room guy, then let you guys review when he finishes
19:13:35 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Whether or not that is best practice I don’t know
19:13:40 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> But he makes big claims
19:13:44 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I will find quote now
19:15:44 <rbrunner> Maybe it's not obvious, but designing software systems and implementing them are two quite different things. You can be excellent at one and terrible at the other, easily.
19:16:49 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Selsta ~ but how would you get bulletproofs++ ready in 3 weeks?  second release can't contain any consensus related changes unless it's an emergency
19:16:49 <bridgerton[m]> Ooo12… ~ > <@selsta:libera.chat> but how would you get bulletproofs++ ready in 3 weeks?
19:16:49 <bridgerton[m]> with enough enthusiasm it's possible
19:16:55 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> ^^ Verbatim quotes.
19:17:11 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Ooo12 giving some SigmaChad vibes
19:17:22 <selsta> we will see in a couple months
19:17:30 <selsta> no need to speculate now lol
19:18:38 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’m not good any of this highly technical stuff. I think ooo12 reckons he is good design, implementation, and security analysis/review. Whether or not this is true, well I guess we will have to see. So far he solved an issue that other missed though.
19:20:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> Not trying to kiss ass here, but ooo is a lot more than multisig
19:22:03 <ofrnxmr[m]> Multisig is just the straw that broke the camels back
19:22:55 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I know haha, but ooo12 got me hyped with that big claim though. He is a drama queen as you know, selsta. I’m pretty sure he was trying to negotiate with you to delay the august hardfork by about 1-2 months, and if you did he would speedrun BP++ in exchange. But this isn’t a tenable solution, because it would require third party audits which would take longer than 2 months. 
19:22:55 <bridgerton[m]> Unfortunately (as far As I could tell) he started to pout when you said BP++ couldn’t be merged for at least 6 months. I agree with you, but this fella has the sprite, he got passion even if he is an oddball.
19:23:30 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> What other feats has he performed.
19:24:07 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> We straight up are trying to power scale ooo12 like a Dragon Ball character right now  lmao XD
19:26:04 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I wonder if he will see these messages haha. Ooo12 what is your full power level?
19:26:21 <rbrunner> Monero anyway is not a sprint, but a marathon. A lot of other coins and projects have to sprint like crazy however, before investor / ICO / premine funds run dry, and everything implodes
19:26:46 <rbrunner> Or public attention drops through the floor
19:28:21 <rbrunner> Sometimes, to get people to try a different perspective, I joke about what our ancestors will do at Monero's 100th birthday, 2114
19:28:52 <sech1> descendants
19:28:54 <sech1> :P
19:28:54 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I agree with you, but this guy isn’t some random scammer. Remember his whole ruckus in the dev channel was that people didn’t care enough about security haha
19:29:01 <rbrunner> Ah, right, of course :)
19:29:05 <ofrnxmr[m]> Ooo was asking about HF delay because he doesnt want to wait years for another one.
19:29:05 <ofrnxmr[m]> Mostly asking "if I finish bp++ two week after the HF. Are you going to wait years to HF again? Or can we HF immdietly" 
19:29:47 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yeah and selsta told him as soon as all the boxes are ticked there can be another hardfork but he still seemed pouty which is unfortunate but his choice lol
19:29:51 <sech1> we can't change HF schedule based on anyone's wild claims like "I can do it in a month"
19:30:21 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I agree. Even he could do it there would still need to be external audits of BP++ right?
19:30:23 <selsta> we aren't changing it?
19:30:31 <ofrnxmr[m]> There is no real schedule though, that im aware of?
19:30:31 <ofrnxmr[m]> Not claims, but he was asking whether it was possible 
19:30:41 <rbrunner> Anyway, are BP++, as a cryptographic construct, peer-reviewed / audited already? Maybe any wild rush to implement could be altogether too early anyway
19:31:09 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> No you shouldn’t change the august hardfork. I agree 100% with you.
19:31:13 <rbrunner> There might be gaping holes in there. Not probable, but possible.
19:31:28 <ofrnxmr[m]> He doesnt seem to want to rush, but to want to get started right away and to have it reviewed and audited in a timely fashion 
19:31:32 <selsta> he wanted to do security analysis too IIRC
19:31:48 <rbrunner> Could be we would happily implement it complete with exploits
19:31:48 <selsta> and that will likely take a while
19:31:58 <rbrunner> still unknown
19:32:14 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> That’s what I was saying. If ooo12 is all wound up like Taz from Luney Tunes let him have at, but he doesn’t understand (I don’t think) that others will have to review his work and 3rd party audits
19:32:32 <rbrunner> And you know, Monero does not rise or fall with or without BP++
19:32:49 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I agree, but if he is so gung ho let him create a massive new piece of code and don’t merge it until all boxes are ticked.
19:32:58 <ofrnxmr[m]> From his perspective. With no HF necessary it took a year to fix the SSL exploits.
19:32:58 <ofrnxmr[m]> The BP+ question, imo, was more about "dont make me do this and then wait 10 years"
19:33:38 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yes, but we can’t just take his analysis because it will be biased if he is the guy who wrote the implementation for it. I think he may not fully grasp that.
19:33:53 <rbrunner> That escalated quickly :) For years we hardforked every half year. Hardforking again half a year after the coming one would not be ideal, but maybe doable.
19:34:09 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> How would this happen?
19:34:19 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yes
19:35:55 <rbrunner> By the way, just saying: See how peacefully and constructive a group of people can chat here even with quite different points of view and opinions.
19:35:57 <rbrunner> It's possible.
19:36:18 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> What do you mean by this? I’m an uneducated rube (keep this in mind) but Monero’s network /current blockchain is basically based on the premise that BulletProofs are airtight and have no room for exploits (aside from Quantum) as far as you guys, the big brains and 3rd party auditors know. Or is my assessment of this situation incorrect?
19:37:04 <rbrunner> Not sure what you mean. BP++ are probably a new construct as far as "airthighness" is concerned.
19:38:08 <plowsof> i want to play the bulletproofs+ game first and when im bored ill think about downloading bulletproofs++
19:38:21 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I mean why does it matter when we hardfork? If BP++ was implemented and airtight according to a variety of different auditors and reviewers, then wouldn’t devs and end users be onboard with a hardfork to enjoy efficiency gains?
19:38:45 <bridgerton[m]> * and airtight (let’s say by the end of Jan 2023) according to
19:39:42 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’m not smart enough to comment on their air-tightness, but perhaps some of you guys are. Ooo12 implies that he is smart enough (may not be though).
19:39:58 <rbrunner> Because a whole "ecosystem" has to move along with a hardfork. It's not just us throwing new software out to the people.
19:40:09 <rbrunner> Exchanges. Hardware wallets. Pools. Miners.
19:40:15 <rbrunner> Software wallets
19:40:59 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> So these parties would actually be against a Jan 2023 hardfork even if efficiency gains can be gained in a secure manner?
19:41:01 <rbrunner> They are not happy if you show up only 2 months later and announce "Same drill again!"
19:41:14 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Why though?
19:41:39 <rbrunner> Manpower, for one thing. Work costs.
19:41:51 <rbrunner> Not everybody is doing it for love :)
19:42:16 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Is it because it’s a pain in the neck on the hardware and exchanges behalf each time they have to accommodate a new fork?
19:42:37 <rbrunner> Basically, yes, as I see it
19:42:54 <rbrunner> And with each hardfork tons of things can go wrong, or astray
19:43:34 <rbrunner> Imagine the daemon(s) of a big exchange forking from mainnet accidentally
19:43:49 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Alright fair enough. I’m just one user and ooo12 is just one dev, so I guess we must graciously accommodate the exchanges and hardware wallets as they have more people in their camp. I’m not being sarcastic by the way.
19:43:58 <rbrunner> Like it happened for some pools at the last hardfork. Lost blocks were the result.
19:44:36 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Oh really? I didn’t hear about this? Who lost blocks? The miners or the exchanges?
19:44:37 <rbrunner> "Good news! We mined a block. Bad news - it was on a wrong chain."
19:44:37 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> And why exactly did they lose blocks?
19:45:00 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> So some mining pools lost their blockreward basically
19:45:08 <rbrunner> I think so, yes
19:45:58 <rbrunner> I mean something like that is not the end of the world, but as you said a potential pain in the neck
19:46:12 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Also I want to thank you guys for taking the time to chat with me in here. It means a lot to me and I’ve learned a lot in the past few hours I’ve been on here about how changes are made in Monero’s code and the practice of working together and hardforks as well.
19:46:32 <rbrunner> A pleasure.
19:46:46 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Because I’m just unsophisticated rube. Who appreciates the good work you guys are doing.
19:47:10 <rbrunner> Greet the pig and the dog :)
19:47:56 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> If Monero failed for some reason I would likely become disillusioned with crypto. I think this project is the true litnus test rather than BTC, because BTC’s policy is to never improve out of fear of failure/security compromise.
19:49:16 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Yeah isn’t it their own fault for not paying close attention to the fork and switching over to the new chain? Seems it’s their own responsibility. An exchange is a different story because they have so many different projects that they can’t possible be sitting in here watching every last thing you guys do. Miners are a different story IMO
19:50:48 <nioc> plowsof: I have been playing the BP+ game for a long time and it is boring now
19:51:04 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I have a form of paranoia- but as far as you are aware BP and BP+ are airtight in Monero, correct? This question is redundant I suppose since you guys wouldn’t pass a proving mechanism that you had meaningful doubts about, right?
19:51:43 <nioc> has been on the mainnet testnet coin long time
19:51:52 <rbrunner> Yes, we had several reviews for those.
19:52:54 <nioc> can't believe imma asking this, is BP+ currently in mooonero?  0.17
19:52:57 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Roger. You guys probably are tired of people that have anxiety asking the same questions over and over.
19:53:24 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Nope this coming hardfork it gets added if I understand correctly.
19:54:31 <rbrunner> We stand now at BP. The hardfork will introduce BP+.
19:54:40 <nioc> what I thought, has been on another coin long time  :)
19:54:45 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I always get anxious because I feel that the security of the ZK proofs for tx size are the foundation of Monero’s future success. And the BTC maxis claiming insecurity or risk in XMR ZKProofs will have frowny face 😦
19:55:09 <nioc> people listen to btc mazis?
19:55:16 <nioc> also maxis
19:55:23 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’ll take your guys word Over theirs though.
19:56:29 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> A BTC maxi who is my neighbor got me into crypto, so I try to give credence to what he says. You guys are more sophisticated and have participated in the reviewing, testing, and auditing process so I differ to you.
19:56:38 <merope> Anyone can claim anything. The goal (ideally) is to make informed claims based on real knowledge
19:56:43 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I defer*
19:56:58 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’m too stupid to audit BP though 😦
19:57:11 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> But dangerous freedom seems to be boiling it down to some extent.
19:58:13 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> My real knowledge is that you guys have documented how BP work, tested it, reviewed it, audits etc. if all of these parties think we are airtight then I see no reason to think otherwise.
20:00:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> Also, bp had a flaw that Sarang had fixed in monero's implementation (so monero wasnt one of the parties at risk)
20:03:41 <r4v3r23[m]> has ringct 3.0 been looked at>
20:28:31 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> Sweet. I remember there was that little news blob a couple months back. I think the Benedict (bulletproofs guy) confirmed that Sarang had done this as well. I hope some day Sarang comes back (pretty unlikely though I guess) 😦
21:38:59 <kowalabearhugs[m> <bridgerton[m]> "<joshhavepigdog> Sweet. I..." <- Sarang was at Monerotopia 2022 in Miami, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHv2gq4Wm5I
21:48:42 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I’ve watched that video 3 times haha.
21:50:46 <bridgerton[m]> <joshhavepigdog> I understand the quantum risk to issue/mint XMR in a BP tx, just I have a form of paranoia so I like to check that no doubts are had amongst the devs regarding BP every now and again. Isn’t that pointless? Well no, because maybe I’m off matrix for a week/month and during that time a similar bug was found to the one that Spagni and luigi1111 mentioned that was patched and verified unexploited.