OK I am totally baffled I am copying my .bitmonero folder from monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0 to v0.18.2.0 an it wont seem to synch from the same block I was at before.

even when i put it in the home folder and I point it there it still wont synch from where I was before

But when I synch with ./monerod --data-dir=. in the v.0.18.0.0 it synchs at 94% complete

can you post the exact command you are using?

and write the full path, not --data-dir=.

I even pointed my term session from the v.0.18.2.0 to v.0.18.0.0 and still it wont synch the chain from the same place I am missing something in what I am doing.

that is the command I am using.

Typically

post the exact command

Ok I open the terminal session in /home/lincoln/monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/ with Thunar. I then use the command ./monerod --data-dir=.

If i do that it synchs at 94%

again you have to write the full path

do not do `./monerod --data-dir=.`

instead do `./monerod --data-dir=/path/to/blockchain`

with the correct path to the blockchain you want to select

users blockchain is in /home/lincoln/monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/.bitmonero (i wronlgy suggested, for convenience, place the .bitmonero folder from here into /home/lincoln/ however this is impossible)

then do `./monerod --data-dir /home/lincoln/monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/`

just mv monerod from 18.2.0 into 18.0.0 and continue as you are

I tried that selsta and that did not work. do i need to add .bitmonero

try adding .bitmonero

nope starts from zero again.

monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.2.0]$ ./monerod --data-dir=/home/lincoln/Monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/.bitmonero

2023-03-31 02:21:16.850 I Monero 'Fluorine Fermi' (v0.18.2.0-release)

2023-03-31 02:21:16.850 I Initializing cryptonote protocol...

2023-03-31 02:21:16.850 I Cryptonote protocol initialized OK

2023-03-31 02:21:16.851 I Initializing core...

2023-03-31 02:21:16.851 I Loading blockchain from folder /home/lincoln/Monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/.bitmonero/lmdb ...

2023-03-31 02:21:17.145 I Loading checkpoints

2023-03-31 02:21:17.145 I Core initialized OK

2023-03-31 02:21:17.145 I Initializing p2p server...

2023-03-31 02:21:17.146 I p2p server initialized OK

2023-03-31 02:21:17.146 I Initializing core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:21:17.146 I Binding on 127.0.0.1 (IPv4):18081

2023-03-31 02:21:18.000 I core RPC server initialized OK on port: 18081

2023-03-31 02:21:18.001 I Starting core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:21:18.001 I core RPC server started ok

2023-03-31 02:21:18.002 I Starting p2p net loop...

2023-03-31 02:21:19.002 I

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I **********************************************************************

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I The daemon will start synchronizing with the network. This may take a long time to complete.

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I You can set the level of process detailization through "set_log <level|categories>" command,

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I where <level> is between 0 (no details) and 4 (very verbose), or custom category based levels (eg, *:WARNING).

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I Use the "help" command to see the list of available commands.

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I Use "help <command>" to see a command's documentation.

2023-03-31 02:21:19.003 I **********************************************************************

2023-03-31 02:21:28.705 I [50.92.236.222:18080 OUT] Sync data returned a new top block candidate: 1 -> 2853661 [Your node is 2853660 blocks (8.9 years) behind]

2023-03-31 02:21:28.705 I SYNCHRONIZATION started

2023-03-31 02:21:29.510 I Synced 101/2853661 (0%, 2853560 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:29.726 I Synced 201/2853661 (0%, 2853460 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:29.954 I Synced 301/2853661 (0%, 2853360 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:30.199 I Synced 401/2853661 (0%, 2853260 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:30.741 I Synced 501/2853661 (0%, 2853160 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:31.002 I Synced 601/2853661 (0%, 2853060 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:31.339 I Synced 701/2853661 (0%, 2852960 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:31.674 I Synced 801/2853661 (0%, 2852860 left)

2023-03-31 02:21:32.270 I Synced 901/2853661 (0%, 2852760 left)

exit

Stop signal sent

2023-03-31 02:21:40.113 I p2p net loop stopped

2023-03-31 02:21:40.184 I Stopping core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:21:40.184 I Node stopped.

Type the command find . -d -name lmdb and show us the result

2023-03-31 02:21:40.238 I Deinitializing core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:21:40.239 I Deinitializing p2p...

2023-03-31 02:21:40.246 I Deinitializing core...

2023-03-31 02:21:40.283 I Stopping cryptonote protocol...

2023-03-31 02:21:40.283 I Cryptonote protocol stopped successfully

any more lines to paste?

./monerod --data-dir=.

2023-03-31 02:23:37.072 I Monero 'Fluorine Fermi' (v0.18.0.0-release)

2023-03-31 02:23:37.072 I Initializing cryptonote protocol...

2023-03-31 02:23:37.072 I Cryptonote protocol initialized OK

2023-03-31 02:23:37.073 I Initializing core...

2023-03-31 02:23:37.073 I Loading blockchain from folder ./lmdb ...

2023-03-31 02:23:37.175 I Loading checkpoints

2023-03-31 02:23:37.175 I Core initialized OK

2023-03-31 02:23:37.175 I Initializing p2p server...

2023-03-31 02:23:37.187 I p2p server initialized OK

2023-03-31 02:23:37.187 I Initializing core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:23:37.187 I Binding on 127.0.0.1 (IPv4):18081

2023-03-31 02:23:37.188 I core RPC server initialized OK on port: 18081

oh no

2023-03-31 02:23:37.189 I Starting core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:23:37.189 I core RPC server started ok

here we go

2023-03-31 02:23:37.190 I Starting p2p net loop...

2023-03-31 02:23:38.191 I

2023-03-31 02:23:38.191 I **********************************************************************

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I The daemon will start synchronizing with the network. This may take a long time to complete.

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I You can set the level of process detailization through "set_log <level|categories>" command,

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I where <level> is between 0 (no details) and 4 (very verbose), or custom category based levels (eg, *:WARNING).

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I Use the "help" command to see the list of available commands.

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I Use "help <command>" to see a command's documentation.

2023-03-31 02:23:38.192 I **********************************************************************

2023-03-31 02:23:38.784 I [5.255.103.180:18080 OUT] Sync data returned a new top block candidate: 2685241 -> 2853662 [Your node is 168421 blocks (7.7 months) behind]

2023-03-31 02:23:38.784 I SYNCHRONIZATION started

2023-03-31 02:23:42.415 I Version 0.18.2.0 of monero for linux-x64 is available: downloads.getmonero.org/cli/monero-linux-x64-v0.18.2.0.tar.bz2, SHA256 hash 83e6517dc9e5198228ee5af50f4bbccdb226fe69ff8dd54404dddb90a70b7322

2023-03-31 02:24:12.666 I Synced 2685261/2853663 (94%, 168402 left)

exit

Stop signal sent

2023-03-31 02:24:22.091 I p2p net loop stopped

2023-03-31 02:24:22.121 I Stopping core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:24:22.121 I Node stopped.

2023-03-31 02:24:22.145 I Deinitializing core RPC server...

2023-03-31 02:24:22.145 I Deinitializing p2p...

2023-03-31 02:24:22.220 I Deinitializing core...

2023-03-31 02:24:23.419 I Stopping cryptonote protocol...

2023-03-31 02:24:23.419 I Cryptonote protocol stopped successfully

That is from both folders with the commands I am using to start the synching the block chain.

If you would like me to not do that I just figured it would help

You don't have to do that from now on, saying 0% or 94% would suffice

Do you not want it syncing from 94%?

ok so

I would very much like it to synching from 94%

. -depth -name lmdb

./lmdb

it said -d was depreciated

I think newer ones are different

Try find . -type d -name lmdb

find . -type d -name lmdb

./lmdb

do cd .. and run the same command

ahh

same thing what folder should i be doing that search from

You're in the data directory

ok that is kinda what I thought

Specifiy the path to the folder containing the lmdb folder

find . -type d -name lmdb

./monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.2.0/lmdb

./lmdb

./.local/share/Trash/files/.bitmonero/lmdb

./.local/share/Trash/files/.2.bitmonero/lmdb

./Monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/.bitmonero/lmdb

./Monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/lmdb

./monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/.bitmonero/lmdb

./monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/lmdb

its all plowsofs fault i think , --data-dir=. will not create a .bitmonero folder ( i think )

no worries I am not the brain trust here either.

rather an lmdb folder

maybe if you said 'i dont see a .bitmonero folder here'that could help

Lol been there

because i think what youve done is copy a bitmonero.log folder

and not tell me there was no .bitmonero folder

text chat is less than perfect form of comunication

and trust me I hold no ill will twoard you for it.

Thanks for all the help I am guessing I can just copy past eh lmdb

Carefully trash /monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/.bitmonero then run monerod --data-dir /monero-x86_64-linux-gnu-v0.18.0.0/

^ Don't delete permantrly

shame on you plowsof

Yes, also copying p2p_state.bin is good b/c you find peers faster

ok I am going to run this from 18.2.0?

another question why do I have two 18.0.0 folders?

every line you send here costs our hosting provider almost 1 cent so can you please consider this the next time you use ctrl+v libera.monerologs.net/monero-community/20230331

perhaps a pastebin service like paste.debian.net (saves us money.. helps us see whats going on)

So sorry

Ill make sure not to do it that way in the future.

Is there a donation address I can send some coins to?

lol im joking

Nice

you got me

Ok I tried to move my LMDB file that is where the data is.

At that rate, it'd be cheaper to inscribe your question into a mordinal

Mordinal didn't know monero had ordinalw

*s

If I move it over will that work? honestly I may just keep it a hiarchy higher so I don't have to do this every time I update.

so youve got /home/lincoln/.bitmonero inside this folder is an lmdb folder (which contains an empty blockchain) - you could cut and paste the lmdb folder from 18.0.0 to here , and start monerod without a --data-dir , thats all im saying , for convenience

Sir_Teal_Esq: there will be an important release in a few days 0.18.2.2

get ready to update :)

no joke

No worries that is easy enough now that I know what I am doing.

my username is human because im a human btw

there are 2 ips on node.moneroworld.com that are down. if your part of the ring, check your daemon

No your not your a malicious AI I can tell

and if anyone has a node they wanna put on the ring, lemme know

what is the ring

18089 repruhsent!

just the bunch of nodes that are listed as an A record on the DNS entry for node.moneroworld.com

round robin dns entry thinger

i was gonna just add the other remote nodes on their to my DNS entry, but they are 18081, so it wouldn't work

there

damnit

i rep the 18089 crew

node.monerodevs.org:18089 node2.monerodevs.org:18089

oh snap, even got a domain name

node is anti nft whereas node2 is pro nft

jeffros 8813 running well, 155 in connections no problems

lessgooo

thanks for testing btw

and thanks to sech1

yep +1

It's seems like you manage to test like every single PR lol

ive noted it in the next meeting community highlights monero-project/meta #819

theres only so much chat logs i can read before getting bored and saying ' i should test something '

I hereby give you the honorable title of "Testie Bestie"

and i see you are working on 'not using coinbase outputs as decoys' jeffro256 monero-project/monero #8815 👀

Yawn yawn

ofrnxmr needs to talk to Jeffro re ^

Will dm when im awake 🥹

I'm more of an i2p and onion type of node user

Most tor/I2p nodes are incompletely configured

Oh

Using onion/eepsite pointed to the rpc port, but most people dont configure txproxy or anon inbound

Understand

* Understood

When i make my own node one day I'll keep those in mind

run or make?

Make

Need those nfts

Honestly. Im going to call this guy

When myself and Monerobull were "backstage", this guy was talking about morbs and spreading false info. I was typing in backstage chat like LIAR!! WTF. LET US ON

But dgoon pisses me off because he does "dev" segments ?!?! And doesnt know any fucking thing

Hard to trust "anon"shop if they are patently dishonest

but its your show doug correct him ;)

<Bon 💗> Name

<plowsof11> "and i see you are working on '..." <- Yessiree , should be most of the way done

Is this even possible fido2 or totp

<ofrnxmr[m]> "Hard to trust "anon"shop if they..." <- The same thing happened to me several weeks ago. And now he comes back again with those shitty publications.

He has interesting publications, but the last ones are meaningless FUD as a premine of Monero, or about privacy vulnerability zzzz

Bulletproofs++ Peer Review is now fully funded! ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/bulletproofs-pp-peer-review.html

Twitter subs baiting

11:44 <DanIsnotthemanBr> Is this even possible fido2 or totp <-- are there any cryptocurrency wallets that support this?

as far as i know it's not possible

> nitter.net/AnonShopApp/status/1641554063606071297

hi. is there anything specific that you find wrong in this post?

> nitter.net/AnonShopApp/status/1641554063606071297

Hi. is there anything people find technically wrong about this post?

> nitter.net/AnonShopApp/status/1641554063606071297

ofrnxmr: is there anything you see technically wrong with this tweet?

technically wrong with what part of it?

Any part. it was linked earlier by ofrnxmr and from the context, they belive that it is wrong in some form?

* Any part. it was linked earlier by ofrnxmr and from the context, they believe that there is something wrong in some form?

Or if anyone thinks I have said or tweeted something that was not technically true, I would love to discuss it.

> He has interesting publications, but the last ones are meaningless FUD as a premine of Monero, or about privacy vulnerability zzzz

Lovera I can't control what people causes fear, uncertainty and doubt in people. I always end my threads by saying something along the lines of , "Monero is the king of privacy". If there are technicals you disagree on that's another issue.

ppl should work together to spread and use ideas rather than secluding it

Especially when software is FOSS

I agree 100%. That's why I am so excited that zcash was able to get trustless setups. That opens the door on a lot of zk schmess that were not viable before. I wish the paper for "Range Proofs with Constant Size and Trustless Setup" was public because getting constant size rangeproofs sounds wild.

s/schmess/schemes/

There is skepticism about the security of that scheme. We'll see. Everything that Monero uses needs to be rock-solid and preferably battletested. Unlike most other privacy coins, Monero does not have any transparent pool that enables "quarantining" (turnstiling) possible counterfeiting bugs.

Plus, more people depend on Monero for their privacy and personal safety than probably any other privacy coin.

Unfortunately, few laypeople would know a mathematical proof if it bit them.

Even peer-reviewed papers can have fatal flaws

I believe that includes the original paper that Zcash used in one of its shielded pools that caused its counterfeiting bug.

The original Bulletproofs paper sort of had a flaw that a lot of protocols accidentally included. Monero didn't because Sarang understood the small issue in the paper and protected Monero's implementation form it

Halo2 hasn't been published in a peer reviewed forum. I believe PLONK has not either.

It would be fantastic if Monero moved to global membership proofs, but we must be absolutely certain that the math and code is correct or Monero could be destroyed.

I searched and I don't think Zcash has a bug bounty program. So Halo2's privacy is not really battletested. There is no concrete financial incentive to look for privacy flaws. A counterfeiting bug would be, uh, self-executing however.

I was thinking about Rucknium your research into ringsigs, and I had fears around backwards privacy offered. It appears that moneros decoy algorithm has a bug every couple of years that severely hurts the privacy of past users. For example Möser, Malte, et al. in 2018 and your research on opsead in 2021. Am I missing something about backwards privacy offered by Monero's ring sigs and its not too big of a deal? Sorry to hit you

with this random question also.

* question also. feel free to not answer if its oo much also.

> Halo2 hasn't been published in a peer reviewed forum. I believe PLONK has not either.

I did not know that. There seems to be a large discrepancy among core devs at what is battle tested and not, because

Both types of systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Let's talk privacy and postpone discussion of counterfeiting bugs:

If there is a statistical problem, the privacy impact is generally probabilistic. That still means that users usually have plausible deniability. Probabilistic attacks are most relevant for users with extreme threat models. If there is a cryptographic problem, the impact is potentially catastrophic: fully revelation of the exact transaction graph. That's what happened to Secret Network. It was researchers who figured it out, so

they were ethical and destroyed the material that could reveal the whole tx graph.

You have to consider risk tradeoffs.

Some (small?) probability of a catastrophic loss of privacy or some (large?) probability of a substantial loss in privacy.

If we have Seraphis-size rings, plus OSPEAD, I think Monero will be in a very good position except for EAE/EABE attacks. Global membership proofs would be better of course. But those need to be proven.

In MRL-0003, the Core Team said that they have a cautious development style. That's Monero's Model. Zcash has its model. Other projects have their models.

Wait. I think it was MRL-0004

"The Monero Core Team and the Monero Research Lab would like to follow the development philosophy that it is wise to start with smaller changes at first and then ramp those changes up over time, rather than start with drastic changes and try to scale them back."

Thanks so much for the amazing answers. I imagine that there is a spectrum amongst devs about what is proven or not. I saw luke state that "Halo and PLONK are proven." in a tweet. I don't quote that to pit anyone against anyone or abuse his statements, just to demonstrate the difference in opinions. What would you personally need to consider halo, halo 2, plonk etc as proven? This is my last q thanks a lot also.

With blockchain protocols, that makes a lot of sense. You cannot really patch past blocks. And all the "data" is out there publicly. Hard to have perfect forward secrecy if for some reason there is something wrong.

With all due respect, kayaba is not a mathematician AFAIK

* demonstrate the apparent difference in, * lot also. The tweet: twitter.com/kayabaNerve/status/1639722697423745025

There are way too many instances of even published peer reviewed papers having flaws. I don't have an extremely specific criteria. I am not a cryptographer.

Rucknium: I'm not, yet I can link to proofs.

While I can't review proofs, I can point to the variety of teams building on these protocols who do have mathematicians and people capable of reviewing proofs.

People can make mistakes. Even reviewers

So proven here means formally proven. Formal proofs can be wrong. Implementations can be wrong. Halo's formal proofs do make me interested in it. It's not the immediate discussion Monero is having though.

Our immediate discussion, for full chain membership proofs, is using a pair of bulletproofs.

Considering we use bulletproofs in prod already (currently bp+), I really don't think there should be questions of its correctness. If it's incorrect, we're already doomed.

*proven in my tweet means formally proven. I'm unsure if I'd suggest it for usage in Monero at this time due to a lack of depth.

The original Halo paper, while built upon and proven, had largely been unused in favor of further evolutions such as Halo 2. That puts it in a weird spot...

By the way, Seraphis isn't proven yet. Code is being written without security proofs.

> Our immediate discussion, for full chain membership proofs, is using a pair of bulletproofs.

is that option 3 you speak of here? monero-project/research-lab #100#issuecomment-1423154798

DGoon: Back to your question, being published in a quality peer-reviewed journal is a necessary but not sufficient condition IMHO.

The original BP+ paper had a small flaw in its proof that was fixable, to name another example. Monero's commissioned "audit" of the paper found the issue.

Actually #1. Curve trees are a pair of BPs

Thanks for the great answers kayabanerve & Rucknium . I have a ton of reading and research to do.

DGoon: Matthew Green had a good story about someone finding a flaw in a published cryptography paper, but it has seemed to disappear from the fediverse

DGoon: This paper found a flaw in the proof of a paper that is years old: eprint.iacr.org/2023/246

Will monero ever have smart contract?

Fortunately, the flaw was fixable.

Pierre Picard: Hopefully not on L1

A math proof is like a path through the forest. The starting point and destination are clear. The path is the hard part. Sometimes if a path is found to be flawed, you can hack through the forest to find another way. Sometimes you fall off a cliff.

There's sidechains like Tari

"The Monero Research Lab discussed using trustless setups from Zcash to improve RingCT Bulletproofs, while randos on Twitter threw a hissy fit at the idea of Monero using Zcash tech"

Yeah there is something technically wrong with this tweet

Hyc, myself and jtgrassie are now twitter randoms

And mrl didnt discuss snarks

"In particular, we identify a subtle but crucial gap that appears in several ROM and QROM security proofs for signature schemes that are based on the Fiat-Shamir with aborts paradigm, including Dilithium. The gap lies in the CMA-to-NMA reduction and was uncovered when trying to formalize a variant of the QROM security proof by Kiltz, Lyubashevsky, and Schaffner (Eurocrypt 2018)....

"The gap was confirmed by the authors, and there seems to be no simple patch for it. We provide new, fixed proofs for the affected CMA-to-NMA reduction, both for the ROM and the QROM, and we perform a concrete security analysis for the case of Dilithium to show that the claimed security level is still valid after addressing the gap."

cockliuser[m]: Any URL about it, sir?

And hes using a screenshot of my question to the constant range proof guest, as proof that we discussed snarks.

Half truths all the time. I dont appreciate it

DGoon:

There are plenty on things on the agenda that we did not discuss. Snarks was one of them

Pierre Picard: tari.com (not an endorsement, use at your own caution)

DGoon: you tweet factually incorrect stuff all the time. Such as monero must adopt snarks or zcash has already won

And following up with HAHA monero discussed snarks Haha

No, no we dont.

And no, no we didnt.

Zcash tokenomics mean it can never win

If it was all about snarks, then arrr has already one

Won*

Twitter randomx

Randoms * lol. You're the twitter random

Doing a dev report on monerotalk and doesnt know a damn thing about whats going on

Its easy to read snippets and come to stupid conclusion. But you do SHITTY journalisism

ClICK bait bullshit

ofrnxmr: I did not state the the team discussed z-snarks in the referenced tweet. I said that the team discussed using zcash tech, and the paper that was discussed mentions and builds upon halo (according to its abstract), which was written all by zcash guys.

Next time you want to be a grifter, use facts

Kid

s/guys/people/

You arent involved in anything

I know what we raised money for, and what papers are being read and discussed

Constant sized range proofs are experimental so wtf are you parrotting about?

We invited guests to give some input on a paper they wrote that had been brought to our attention within the last couple weeks

And it is an alternative to bp++, not necessarily fmp

You probably cant name 2 devs that do work in both money and zcash

> And it is an alternative to bp++, not necessarily fmp

in the referenced tweet, I never mentioned fmp.

Your dishonestly referencing the fmp convo from the day prior !

And were NOT using the constant size range proofs!

The people were invited BECAUSE we are moving forward by April 14

AKA we are moving forward with bp++

Its called MRL for a reason

Its not "monero doesnt research lab"

> And were NOT using the constant size range proofs!

I never said monero was using constant-size range proofs...

You claimed "we" are ransoms on twitter, and also that "we" discussed zcash tech

Thats the dumbest clown shit ive heard all we

"We" are the same fuckin people

I think I know what "we" did and didnt do

No hard feeling

I think k said somewhere that I need to call yoi

Because clearly youre not TRYING so spread false info

Ive seen many factually incorrect "as a matter of fact" statements from you, and they just show that you are out of the loop when it comes to quality of your content

Monero isnt some closed book operation. If you pay enough attention, you should start to learn how things work around here.

Zcash scientific approach is "copy btc, add snarks. Dont even have a fee market. Oh, add 20% dev fee and switch mining algos and eventually pos"

<ofrnxmr[m]> "DGoon: you tweet factually..." <- Lol

To claim monero doesnt take a scientific approach is nonsense.... (full message at <libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/do…fa7180e26a6f8944b3f105df38b3c79546c>)

Zcash didnt take the scientific approach, they took the "sell broken tools to noobs to fund research" approach

This is how fmp zksnarks look when you actually use zaddress tx

Monero does far more private tx and zcash.

How do we scale?

How do they scale?

Is it scaleable?

Is it fundamentally unusable until either notice?

Is it perfectly acceptable?

s/either/further/

> DGoon: you tweet factually incorrect stuff all the time. Such as monero must adopt snarks or zcash has already won

I have said that Monero is the king of privacy over and over again and constantly praise Monero throughout my threads. When monero goes to fmp, it might not be zk-snarks but it will most likely mention/build on work zcash and team have done over the past decade. Monero will have to go fmp eventually, no one knows when that will happen though.

No, not most likely. Lol.

Are you hiring devs?

Having opinions is nice, but the only thing "likely" are things with actual commitments

Its not likely that we will eventually start making Nissan leafs.

Electric cars? Maybe one day. We dont sell unreliable junk

Will Nissan make the battery pack? The drivetrains? The electronics?

Who knows what sw we use

And again, "zcash tech". Lol, devs cross over from zcash to monero

Its open source Bud.

Monero tech isnt "monero tech". Its tech for anyone to use, that may or may not have been created here

Advances in cryptography and math happen all the time, just now somebody could work on a breakthrough that will change cryptocurrencies forever.

Really hard to make predictions for years ahead.

It's fun, for example, like I recently did, to read science fiction from the 1980's, taking place in 2050 or so, and no mobile phones whatsoever around :)

And the craziest part?!?!

You didnt even notice Sarang spoke.

Not sure if you even know who sarang is (?)

Oh yeah making predictions is hard, but in my reading of the research papers Zcash and co keep coming up and being referenced. For example all of the papers mentioned by kayabaNerve's 3 options on the zk-snark and monero github mention zcash and or their work. Mention != build upon of course but given their output in the space it's unlikely for them to not be somehow involved/mention in future moves in the zk-snark space and

adjacent areas. Like you said though, someone might come up with something complete out of left field though. Given how dev work goes, that scenario could still end up involving zcash somehow. Future predictions are hard but some are much more likely than others given what we currently know.

I was here the day that traitor s*** made the issue plowsof @plowsof:matrix.org:

Your foregone conclusions are made up nonsense.

Seth doesnt dictate what we do

He opened the table for discussion, which lead to many issues including licencing problems

* > Really hard to make predictions for years ahead.Oh yeah

* Oh yeah making predictions is hard, but in my reading of the research papers Zcash and co keep coming up and being referenced. For example all of the papers mentioned by kayabaNerve's 3 options on the zk-snark and monero github mention zcash and or their work. Mention != build upon of course but given their output in the space it's unlikely for them to not be somehow involved/mention in future moves in the zk-snark space and

adjacent areas. Like you said though, someone might come up with something complete out of left field though. Given how dev work goes, that scenario could still end up involving zcash somehow. Future predictions are hard but some are much more likely than others given what we currently know.

Its not a pissing contest.

We dont hate zcash. I think we just dont like the idea that it is paraded around as a working solutions, when its totally not

🍆

Mines bigger

<salami donators!> You like men