07:43:39 <spirobel[m]> <jollyboy> "ofrnxmr:  I mean, what files and..." <- read wallet2.cpp
13:06:12 <ofrnxmr[m]> Why is majeaticbank shill fudding bout cake again?
13:07:48 <ofrnxmr[m]> Its almost like @moneroprophet is paid to make himself look dumb as hell
13:10:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://nitter.sethforprivacy.com/moneroprophet/status/1684286116944400384#m
13:11:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> Why do i post this in community? Because i imagine Majestic still sponsors this account, and without saying it, this account is ahilling elitewallet + majeaticbank integration 
13:11:22 <ofrnxmr[m]> If they were being remotely honest, theyd bring up how "thats simply how 3rd party services work". And in the case of changenow or trocador + changenow, or cake + changenow, or cake + trocador + changenow, you are subject to changenow's terms
14:48:31 <plowsof11> (nice that nitter still works) thanks for sharing. Are these things displayed on kycnot.me? 
14:54:34 <plowsof11> https://kycnot.me/exchange/changenow should pluja add these points here? And should mobile wallets point people here to make an informed decision on what swapper to use 
15:08:55 <ofrnxmr[m]> Swappers are cex
15:09:44 <ofrnxmr[m]> Trocador lists which swappers require what info
15:09:47 <ofrnxmr[m]> and some swappers arent available over tor etc
15:11:38 <ofrnxmr[m]> Its not "changenow"
15:11:38 <ofrnxmr[m]> its every regulated money service biz
15:12:27 <ofrnxmr[m]> TOS obviously state that youre subject to privacy policies of and third party service that you use
15:14:25 <ofrnxmr[m]> If you want an informed decision: 
15:14:25 <ofrnxmr[m]> a) use swaps that allow tor. Like trocador
15:14:25 <ofrnxmr[m]> b) dont complain if you dont read the tos, privacy plicy or eula
15:16:09 <ofrnxmr[m]> Cake doesnt send anything to anyone unless you make use of the service. 
15:16:09 <ofrnxmr[m]> there is a "privacy" menu of cake where you can disable third party services, or only use ones that cannot collect info (onion exchanges and fiat api)
15:17:03 <ofrnxmr[m]> Elitewallet gets its fiat exchange rates _directly_ from coingecko. 
15:17:03 <ofrnxmr[m]> so, i guess "elitewallet is sending your ip to coingecko!! 🤬" lol
15:17:53 <ofrnxmr[m]> Cake allows fiat rates to be pulled over onion. Allows using trocador with tor-only exchanges (so changenow gets disabled when selectinf tor only)
15:18:38 <ofrnxmr[m]> Tldr: "my wallet suck, so im going to pay someone to shit on the person im copy pasting from"
15:20:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> talk about sniffing the network? Go sniff elitewalle. Shits a joke
15:25:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> with maximum privacy settings:
15:25:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> cake connections: onion fiat api or off (optional), onion exchanges (on demand), onion node or my node, nothing else
15:25:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> elitewallet: clearnet coingecko fiat api, clearnet majesticbank exchange, elitewallet.sc proxy, my node, onion node doesnt work with "eliteproxy"
16:19:55 <kayabanerve[m]> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/403
16:49:04 <rbrunner> kayabanerve[m]: This proposal gives an empty "Overview" page for me. Is this intended? Other proposals typically seem to explain the CCS there.
16:49:33 <rbrunner> Or is there a mechanism to copy over the body of the CCS proposal to the "Overview" page that somehow fails here?
16:49:52 <ofrnxmr[m]> `this CCS does not ... guarantee any continued development.`
16:49:52 <ofrnxmr[m]> kaya, you get to leave when you RIP! (ask sarang)
16:49:54 <kayabanerve[m]> rbrunner: Simple answer
16:49:54 <kayabanerve[m]> I made a mistake
16:49:59 <kayabanerve[m]> One sec :p Sorry. Will fix
16:50:04 <kayabanerve[m]> Thanks for the headss up
16:50:06 <kayabanerve[m]> s/headss/heads/
16:50:06 <ofrnxmr[m]> rbrunner: Kaya formatting issue. The "changes" tab has the fulk details
16:50:43 <kayabanerve[m]> Added desc, sorry for forgetting
16:50:53 <ofrnxmr[m]> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/403/diffs
16:51:09 <rbrunner> "kaya, you get to leave when you RIP! (ask sarang)" That's too high for me.
16:51:14 <kayabanerve[m]> ofrnxmr: I plan to make a PR for continuing the work in a week or two
16:51:17 <kayabanerve[m]> Don't worry ;)
16:51:38 <rbrunner> Much better now with overview, thanks
16:52:03 <rbrunner> I have a question about this: "I spent a month and a half working on full chain membership proofs for Monero"
16:52:20 <kayabanerve[m]> What's the Q?
16:52:23 <rbrunner> Your description sounds like the total work was more than these 6 weeks of programming proper.
16:52:34 <rbrunner> If yes, can you maybe estimate the total?
16:53:24 <rbrunner> I ask because I predict that if people strictly understand "about USD 40k for 6 weeks" they may have second thoughts whether that has merit.
16:53:44 <rbrunner> To put it bluntly, sorry.
16:53:57 <plowsof11> Hours/rates like everyone else 
16:54:07 <ofrnxmr[m]> I think since end of march
16:54:09 <kayabanerve[m]> I spent roughly 6 straight weeks on the programming of this attempt, with my hours which exceed the standard week. In the past, I have not only done research yet other attempts. The other attempts didn't pan out, and most prior research was externally rewarded on a work exchange.
16:55:16 <rbrunner> Yes, that's what I expected. An estimate of the total would be good, IMHO, otherwise people will slap you with an incredibly high rate per hour and maybe oppose
16:55:59 <kayabanerve[m]> There was research post-exchange I'd have to tally, though I'd rather the emphasis be on the work itself. Not only is it a full implementation of BP+, it's also a ZK framework for arbitrary circuits, curve trees, and the application of divisors. I can say that this amount of work, on the market, would've been many times more expensive.
16:56:22 <kayabanerve[m]> I believe my hourly estimate, when I did my initial guess of hours (ignoring interim research), was $110/h.
16:56:35 <plowsof11> Hours/rates for the work provided by (i think 2) jberman/Liam . Have you paid them out of pocket already?
16:56:39 <ofrnxmr[m]> rbrunner: Not me
16:56:58 <rbrunner> Yes, that's why I almost beg you add something more than just that 6 hour number at the top and then the USD 50k at the end :)
16:57:07 <rbrunner> *6 week
16:57:12 <rbrunner> :(
16:57:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> This is "how to lose devs 101"
16:58:05 <ofrnxmr[m]> Pay geonic 25k Noooooo problem
16:58:19 <kayabanerve[m]> From my understanding, that is ~1.6x the average CCS rate due to the specialty and amount of work produced, yet also ~half Cypher Stack's going rate for Aaron (I'd have to check, I'm unsure it's static per hour), and a fraction of the competitive ZK market.
16:58:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> Tell sarang to repay tryptych and and overafe from bp++
16:58:40 <ofrnxmr[m]> Question kaya, who's not mj, about his contributions
16:59:18 <kayabanerve[m]> *Not to say those aren't worth it, to say this isn't a ridiculous amount. As for including the hourly rate, I can, yet was initially advised against it since it exceeds the more frequent rates.
16:59:45 <rbrunner> "~1.6x the average CCS rate" That's perfectly fine for such outstanding, pioneering work. But give that info the CCS. All IMHO, of course.
16:59:46 <ofrnxmr[m]> Give monero a future? For 2x the cost of geonics movie? PITCHFORRRKKKKS
16:59:50 <ofrnxmr[m]> but pay the scammers.
17:00:16 <kayabanerve[m]> plowsof11: jberman I am liable to pay upon the proposal passing or failing, a burden I assumed and take responsibility for. If the proposal passes, I will not touch my current funds. If it fails, I will have to, as I understood when I hired them.
17:00:37 <rbrunner> Which pitchforks? We are among friends here, and I deeply care for this CCS, and want it to succeed. That's why I speak out.
17:00:44 <kayabanerve[m]> Liam understands that my attempt to be thankful is part of my request for retroactive funding. The two are connected.
17:01:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> rbrunner, the pitchforks rhat dont come out when peopleare scamming
17:01:29 <ofrnxmr[m]> Only honest contributors get scrutinized 
17:01:40 <rbrunner> Yes, and there is no scam here wide and far, right? Just a CCS that I think you can easily "read wrongly"
17:01:44 <kayabanerve[m]> Not appreciating Eagen's contributions with BP++ and EC IP would be sub-optimal IMO, especially as we want a continued relationship
17:02:17 <ofrnxmr[m]> Correct. No scam here. But we fund scam ccs' by getting bullied into shutting up
17:02:44 <rbrunner> Look, it's easy. If there is a total of, say, 12 weeks of work in this already, for the love of god don't write SIX
17:02:45 <ofrnxmr[m]> At rates of 25k for absolutely 0 expected ROI
17:02:48 <kayabanerve[m]> I also debated the BP+ authors, yet then I'd have to debate BP. I also debated curve trees' authors, yet had a series of thoughts there. If we fallback to their VCS scheme, or its massively relevant to the developed VCS scheme, I may change my mind and make a future CCS/send a thanks out of pockeet.
17:03:10 <kayabanerve[m]> ofrnxmr: rbrunner Not to be rude, yet the CCS meta doesn't have to be on the table here. We can argue about it later :p
17:03:24 <ofrnxmr[m]> rbrunner:  but but kaya issssssuper kaya
17:03:31 <kayabanerve[m]> rbrunner: Tbf, I don't take weekends and work ~10h a day, ignoring the days I pull all nighters.
17:03:44 <kayabanerve[m]> So it's 6 yet it's 6 of my weeks.
17:04:10 <ofrnxmr[m]> remenber, kaya isnt 55 years old
17:04:17 <rbrunner> Whatwever, I step down from my soapbox, I have made my point. I am 60, I know how people tend to misunderstand things.
17:04:29 <ofrnxmr[m]> And is on a mission
17:04:32 <kayabanerve[m]> The prior research, which wasn't covered under the work exchange, is comparatively marginal. It's definitely not another 6 weeks.
17:04:49 <rbrunner> Yeah, I know that with the mission firsthand from Prague :)
17:05:07 <rbrunner> Was an exciting experience
17:05:20 <rbrunner> All meant in a very positive sense
17:05:33 <kayabanerve[m]> My mission was to look cute af and serve the community 😎
17:05:41 <rbrunner> Lol
17:06:43 <kayabanerve[m]> :P Happy to answer questions about the current proposal. I don't believe I'm owed anything, else I wouldn't have made the code FOSS, except perhaps the opportunity to let the community decide if I'm worth donating to by being listed as a CCS.
17:07:13 <ofrnxmr[m]> i dont look at hours. I look at ROI. 
17:07:13 <ofrnxmr[m]> 50k, when we pay 20k for peer reviews and 25k for movies, is fair.
17:07:13 <ofrnxmr[m]> we still need audits on the 50kv so another 20k here and there. Maybe we shouldstop buying movies w cant watch, then we have more money for actual contributoins
17:07:18 <kayabanerve[m]> But if it is declined, which I would object to and not prefer (obviously), I do still plan to continue my contributions.
17:07:37 <rbrunner> I would buy this for 50k any day. Even if kayabanerve used magic to conjure it up in a single afternoon. But many people don't know how much it's worth.
17:08:02 <rbrunner> Don't get me started on that movie ...
17:08:10 <ofrnxmr[m]> much more than 50.. id think
17:08:31 <kayabanerve[m]> i can edit to 500k don't worry
17:08:32 <kayabanerve[m]> /s :p
17:08:42 <Rucknium[m]> I would buy this for 310 XMR...if it's proven to be a sound cryptographic protocol.
17:08:49 <rbrunner> Yes, but that's *exactly* how it can work if people themselves can't judge.
17:10:12 <ofrnxmr[m]> Ooo did a ccs for 300 xmr and never claimed most of it. He did work that was almost never reviewed
17:10:15 <kayabanerve[m]> Rucknium: VCS is actively being worked on, with proofs. That will let us define our instantiation of Curve Trees, which at the core, is a merkle tree proof embedded into a pair of Bulletproofs. Bulletproofs is proven. Merkle tree proofs are... I have no idea how they wouldn't be proven.
17:10:26 <kayabanerve[m]> And I believe Zcash formalized/proved Pedersen hashes.
17:10:35 <ofrnxmr[m]> 7760 and 7999 in limbo for a year and still in limbo to this day, respectively
17:10:46 <Rucknium[m]> Curve trees have so security proofs AFAIK
17:10:54 <Rucknium[m]> no*
17:11:02 <kayabanerve[m]> The only remaining part is a few basic gadgets in curve trees, the divisor work, and formal verification of it.
17:11:30 <ofrnxmr[m]> Wouldnt be the first tome we paid for code that we didnt implement (im saying, we shouldnt implement it without proofs/audits etc)
17:11:33 <kayabanerve[m]> I'm somewhat arguing CT doesn't exist, solely a Merkle tree proof where H=Pedersen, embedded in a BP.
17:12:16 <kayabanerve[m]> Which isn't to say that's good enough. It's to say I don't believe it's a blocker while security work is being done in parallel and already catalogued.
17:14:04 <rbrunner> I think that's part of this package, a certain risk that we, the Monero community, buy something that will later explode. Probably a small risk.
17:14:19 <rbrunner> Maybe even if it explodes first, the second model, after fix, will fly.
17:15:30 <kayabanerve[m]> If divisors explode, we can revert back to their ECC gadgets. That said, divisors have existed for decades and are decently researched. They're not new. Their usage here is novel.
17:15:49 <kayabanerve[m]> If BP+ VCS explodes, BP VCS. If that, then we know the piece needed and can make it an open research issue.
17:15:59 <nioc> rbrunner: thanks for asking the question that resulted in clarification which helps the unwashed masses (that's me) understand what this is  :)
17:16:37 <ofrnxmr[m]> And like, we have 2500xmr for monero.com. priorities lol
17:16:37 <kayabanerve[m]> nioc: Mind clarifying your commnts/questions?
17:16:40 <kayabanerve[m]> Just so I can better understand how to edit this
17:18:13 <nioc> I just saw the hrs and $ as initially stated.  I have no other questions.  Hopefully you will be able to expand your wardrobe :)
17:19:02 <nioc> I think rbrunner has already asked the relevant questions <3
17:20:01 <rbrunner> Happy to be useful, nioc :)
17:20:48 <nioc> basically 6 weeks is more like 12 weeks so there is no question about the $$
17:22:33 <rbrunner> ofrnmxr[m]: We hear you, and maybe feel much of the same dismay, but I think many people don't have that knowledge about background and past happenings
17:22:51 <nioc> next meeting in this channel is Sat Aug 5 15:00 UTC
17:24:40 <kayabanerve[m]> 41400 / my hourly estimate < $100
17:25:35 <nioc> plowsof11: please merge  :D
17:25:49 <Rucknium[m]> I've brought up the issue of putting carts before horses many times. I don't see others really caring about it, so I'll stop bringing it up. If new cryptography goes on Monero mainnet without mathematical security proofs, reviews of those security proofs, and code audits, I'll re-evaluate my continued contributions to the project.
17:25:51 <plowsof11> Is the payment to Liam a token of appreciation? (Would be good to know what entices them) same for jberman
17:26:48 <plowsof11> I have been quoted 4k/day for consultancy. I just want to have some data points 
17:28:16 <plowsof11> (not from them lol)
17:29:48 <nioc> maybe I am mistaken but I believe for several years now all improvements that needed proofs and audits have gotten them
17:30:02 <rbrunner> Rucknium[m]: I am fully with you here, as far as I can see. We seem to disagree how imminent the danger of bringing unproven things to mainnet through a hardfork is.
17:30:47 <kayabanerve[m]> Rucknium: I can promise you that I won't sign off on deploying this without: 1) Review of the application of divisors 2) A proven and reviewed VCS scheme 3) Multiple audits 4) A better understanding of what should be audited, what should be formally verified, and further criteria established on those bounds.
17:31:35 <rbrunner> The question whether we should start to develop unproven things looks like a quite different one to me.
17:31:42 <Rucknium[m]> kayabanerve: Thanks, but don't we need security proofs of soundness of the protocol as a whole, not just parts?
17:31:47 <kayabanerve[m]> plowsof: The gift to Eagen was my own nominated amount and not representative of any work performed for Monero nor work in the future implied. The deal with Berman is set.
17:32:07 <kayabanerve[m]> Rucknium: I'm legitimately unsure if we need proofs of soundness or formal verification, hence my #4.
17:32:34 <kayabanerve[m]> Security proofs are not my field, and it may be either are viable yet the latter is a better fit.
17:32:47 <ofrnxmr[m]> <plowsof11> "I have been quoted 4k/day for..." <- I pay plowsof this much everytime i dm him
17:33:06 <rbrunner> This anyway comes on top of many such things we still need for Seraphis. Which is not controversial as far as I understand.
17:33:45 <Rucknium[m]> nioc: Probably things are on less solid ground than you think:
17:33:48 <kayabanerve[m]> With Seraphis, we've stated that's going the proof route and Spark demonstrates the proving of a comparable protocol. We also need Seraphis proofs.
17:33:51 <Rucknium[m]> > In this work, we provide the first rigorous security analysis for RingCT (as given in Zero to Monero, v2.0.0, 2020) in its entirety. This is in contrast to prior works that provided security arguments for only parts of RingCT. To this end, we provide the first holistic security model for Monero’s RingCT. In our model, we then prove the security of RingCT.
17:33:59 <Rucknium[m]> Cremers, C., Loss, J., & Wagner, B. 2023. "A holistic security analysis of Monero transactions."  https://moneroresearch.info/index.php?action=resource_RESOURCEVIEW_CORE&id=171
17:34:06 <ofrnxmr[m]> kayabanerve[m]: Haha plowsof, thata you again right
17:34:12 <Rucknium[m]> That's from earlier this year, after mainnet RingCT implementation
17:34:39 <rbrunner> You mean RingCT was also introduced a tad early ...? :)
17:35:03 <kayabanerve[m]> While RCT wasn't proven as a composition, I believe MLSAG and CLSAG were, as were the range proofs.
17:35:09 <Rucknium[m]> Don't forget the original Cryptonote implementation had a cryptographic counterfeiting flaw. And the original RingCT proposal was also flawed.
17:35:17 <Rucknium[m]> And the stakes are higher today, so the standards should be higher, too
17:35:21 <kayabanerve[m]> > And the original RingCT proposal was also flawed.
17:35:26 <kayabanerve[m]> Can you be more specific here?
17:35:31 <Rucknium[m]> rbrunner: Yes, frankly
17:35:34 <kayabanerve[m]> > so the standards should be higher, too
17:35:35 <kayabanerve[m]> agreed
17:35:46 <Rucknium[m]> kayabanerve: Yes...
17:36:19 <Rucknium[m]> https://nickler.ninja/blog/2016/12/17/a-problem-with-ringct/
17:36:20 <Rucknium[m]> https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/4
17:36:20 <Rucknium[m]> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5j4z1e/a_problem_with_ring_ct/
17:36:25 <kayabanerve[m]> 'The original RCT proposal being flawed' only makes me think of the idea to use a range proof which wasn't Borromean based
17:36:32 <kayabanerve[m]> Right, ASNL
17:36:43 <kayabanerve[m]> That had a faulty proof IIRC :/
17:36:49 <rbrunner> I don't see much controversy here then. It may just tempt us heavily if the code is finished, and runs, but the proofs are still on the way.
17:37:22 <nioc> RingCT was introduced when Monero was young and before we started paying for external audits
17:37:26 <kayabanerve[m]> > Hi, the paper states that it is a sketch of a proof (
17:37:27 <kayabanerve[m]> oof
17:37:42 <kayabanerve[m]> nioc: obviously we should've had an ico /s
17:38:00 <rbrunner> That would be *much* easier, lol
17:38:20 <rbrunner> Just let the funds rain down on us
17:42:49 <rbrunner> Very interesting blog post about that ASNL thing, and the info in the Reddit thread to put it into perspective. Didn't know this episode of Monero history yet.
17:45:12 <Rucknium[m]> IMHO, people have less caution about new cryptography since they don't know the history of critical failures and they don't understand much of formal mathematics.
17:46:42 <Rucknium[m]> I've researched the history. I know (some of) formal mathematics. I try to point these things out. But I said I would stop giving this perspectives.
17:46:52 <rbrunner> Yes. I think it would be a good idea to make that episode known wider in the broad context of adding so much new stuff, exactly to warn.
17:47:57 <rbrunner> I still strongly suspect things are much less dire than your gut feeling tells you right now.
17:48:30 <rbrunner> Personally I don't see any clear danger of doing something really reckless with Monero mainnet anytime soon.
17:50:20 <Rucknium[m]> If you want more episodes, start on page 12 :)   https://github.com/Rucknium/presentations/blob/main/Rucknium-Monerotopia-2023-Slides.pdf
17:51:13 <rbrunner> Ah, the case studies there?
17:51:36 <Rucknium[m]> Yes.
17:52:06 <Rucknium[m]> Not just Monero, but similar protocols.
17:52:12 <rbrunner> Yeah, nice collection.
17:52:37 <rbrunner> We really don't want to feature in the next iteration of this slide deck :)
17:53:15 <Rucknium[m]> No kidding
18:13:47 <midipoet> kayabanerve[m]: this might be a stupid question, but where does the actual output of the work that has been done reside? Is it sitting in a repository somewhere, or is the knowledge in the form of pre-prints (and content therein) linked at the top of the CCS proposal?
18:14:12 <kayabanerve[m]> midipoet: github.com/kayabaNerve/full-chain-membership-proofs/
18:16:25 <midipoet> Thanks
18:17:18 <kayabanerve[m]> That also already has a healthy issue tracker 
18:21:11 <midipoet> And another stupid question, so please bear with me, will the contributors to that repository get anything (other than the specified payments to berman and liam)? It shows there were 10 (though maybe this is less than 10 actual people). 
18:38:39 <kayabanerve[m]> midipoet: It's a fork of Serai. The FCMP work has no direct contributors other than myself and Berman.
18:39:05 <kayabanerve[m]> ... to the best of my memory, at least. I can't remember if there's some minor commit from someone else, yet I don't believe so.
18:39:14 <midipoet> good to know. thanks. 
18:39:41 <kayabanerve[m]> Which also means a lot of the libs it's built with were audited already. All the relevant ones are MIT licensed.
18:47:38 <rbrunner> Ah, I was wondering how far back the commits go. "Fork of Serai" explains that.
18:49:04 <midipoet> personally, i don't see any issue with this going to funding. retrospective funding is relatively novel, but it could be argued that it improves certain barriers/aspects of the CCS process (some you mention in the proposal). There isn't any particular rule against retrospective funding either, as far as i understand. I do think that there should be specific "milestones" for the payments intended to be made to berman and 
18:49:04 <midipoet> liam, and then one for the remaining balance to you (just so that it is explicitly clear where funds are going). I also think that providing approximate hours spent that match the "milestone 3" payment to you, as per your advertised hourly rate, would help digestion of cost/benefit. 
18:50:25 <kayabanerve[m]> midipoet: For Berman, I believe I noted their work was reducing multiplications in their section. Are you advocating for a dedicated milestone instead of it being lumped in under BP+ impl?
18:51:02 <kayabanerve[m]> For Eagen, I'm unsure a specific milestone can be legitimately created.
18:52:10 <kayabanerve[m]> Berman did https://github.com/kayabaNerve/full-chain-membership-proofs/commit/caeac8f8d599b31b09607c6a609359f4b00ffc65 and https://github.com/kayabaNerve/full-chain-membership-proofs/pull/9 for context
18:52:31 <kayabanerve[m]> kayabanerve[m]: O
18:53:21 <kayabanerve[m]> > <@kayabanerve:matrix.org> For Eagen, I'm unsure a specific milestone can be legitimately created.
18:53:22 <kayabanerve[m]>  * I'd just want to be explicitly clear Eagen was never contracted by nor obligated to the Monero project, and this is a gift of appreciation for their work in general as they are bound by a traditional employment contract which I don't want to disrupt
18:53:55 <kayabanerve[m]> Though I do believe we can contract them, as I asked about that a while ago
18:54:42 <midipoet> I don't even know if its a milestone, just something that details explicitly the amounts being paid to others, and then the remaining to you. Payment 1:  3.6k to berman for... Payment 2: 5k to liam for... Payment 3: 41.4k to kayaba for 414 hours (approximately 6 weeks at my workrate) at $100p/h. 
18:55:42 <kayabanerve[m]> ... Isn't that the current funds breakdown section?
18:56:12 <kayabanerve[m]> Amount quoted 50k
18:56:12 <kayabanerve[m]> j-berman obligation (3600)
18:56:12 <kayabanerve[m]> Eagen 5k
18:56:12 <kayabanerve[m]> With all that, my rate 100 an hour
18:56:39 <kayabanerve[m]> There is also technically milestones at the top since plowsof recommended so breaking down work
18:57:24 <kayabanerve[m]> Sorry if I'm being a bit dense here, just unsure the feedback
19:03:58 <midipoet> Yeah, i suppose it is. Perhaps it's just a formatting thing, bullet points and bold text or something. 
19:06:10 <midipoet> Might also be because the text/explanations that come before are pretty demanding, so by the end it's hard to parse the money bit in an easy manner. 
19:10:17 <revuoxmr> Revuo Monero Issue 180: July 20 - 27, 2023. https://revuo-xmr.com/issue-180.html
19:37:51 <SNeedlewoods> just skimmed over the conversation, but now I want to know more about the 25k monero movie
19:38:03 <SNeedlewoods> "ofrnxmr[m]: 50k, when we pay 20k for peer reviews and 25k for movies, is fair."
19:45:48 <blankpage[m]> SNeedlewoods historic monero drama can be found here 
19:45:48 <blankpage[m]> https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/371
19:53:09 <SNeedlewoods> thank you
19:54:49 <plowsof11> the Monero heavy trailer https://nitter.sethforprivacy.com/markofdistinctn/status/1662592776087953408 
19:59:31 <SNeedlewoods> the trailer is awesome, my favorite comment is this: "Saying more, if @Monero support this kind of marketing, I boycott #Monero."
22:19:02 <recanman[m]> I am excited for the film, but I don't understand the use of Monero in this.
22:19:29 <recanman[m]> It is just given to someone and said "this is like Bitcoin but untraceable". Where else is it used? 
22:26:06 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> Css marketing fund
22:26:26 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> I this is the point why did css fund it
22:33:39 <ofrnxmr[m]> <recanman[m]> "I am excited for the film, but I..." <- 25k 
22:34:06 <recanman[m]> Sorry, I meant the promotion
22:34:12 <recanman[m]> Not how much was funded
22:34:15 <ofrnxmr[m]> Milestone 1 "pay me to share my movie with film festivals" 12k
22:34:15 <ofrnxmr[m]> milestone 2 "pay me if i win at any of them"
22:34:31 <ofrnxmr[m]> recanman[m]: Monero is mentioned in a song or something
22:34:34 <recanman[m]> I see that it is introduced in the trailer, but it does not really use Monero throughout the trailer
22:34:44 <recanman[m]> * the trailer. Just saying it is untraceable.
22:34:50 <ofrnxmr[m]> * of them" 12k
22:35:12 <ofrnxmr[m]> Really, there is no crypto in the movie
22:35:13 <lukeprofits[m]> And yall declined my proposal for something actually useful smh
22:35:17 <ofrnxmr[m]> Lukeprofits, that ccs was a fkn scam
22:35:31 <recanman[m]> The business wallet one?
22:35:40 <lukeprofits[m]> Yep
22:35:41 <ofrnxmr[m]> It was majority rejected, and had sockpuppet accounts pushing it to funding
22:35:54 <ofrnxmr[m]> Then it was merged behind the scenes 
22:36:34 <lukeprofits[m]> It's coming along well, I'm just working for free while random movies get funded
22:36:36 <lukeprofits[m]> It's fine
22:36:58 <recanman[m]> I'm getting a feeling that you're angry
22:37:02 <recanman[m]> But I'm not sure
22:37:17 <ofrnxmr[m]> lukeprofits:  im referring to the movie btw
22:38:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> lukeprofits[m]: Trust me, even though i voted against your proposal, i was much much more against that bullshit movie
22:38:32 <recanman[m]> I don't remember, did it get funded?
22:38:40 <ofrnxmr[m]> Yes
22:38:44 <recanman[m]> https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/monero-to-the-oscars.html
22:38:48 <ofrnxmr[m]> It went to funding on a tuesday
22:39:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> Without consensus
22:39:49 <ofrnxmr[m]> And was funded by large actors who were caught messing with the voting.
22:40:03 <recanman[m]> I don't remember hearing any of this
22:40:06 <recanman[m]> Messing with the voting?
22:40:11 <ofrnxmr[m]> The bulletproof+ peer review ccs cost less than the movie (and the movie isnt available to us)
22:40:31 <ofrnxmr[m]> recanman[m]: Using sockpuppets to vote multiple times
22:40:39 <recanman[m]> Where?
22:40:55 <ofrnxmr[m]> On gitlab
22:41:18 <recanman[m]> I've only ever donated to audits and peer reviews, I find those worthy
22:41:23 <ofrnxmr[m]> Look at the thumbs up
22:41:54 <ofrnxmr[m]> yeah, the movie was funded by people with money 
22:42:16 <ofrnxmr[m]> i guess geonic wanted to go through ccs instead of gettingthe money directly
22:42:16 <recanman[m]> M0x1zxq7896lp2ze: 2 more weeks
22:42:18 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> what about bulletproofs++ are they coming with seraphis + jamatis and FCMP
22:42:26 <ofrnxmr[m]> Bp++ paper was recently updated 
22:42:27 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> recanman[m]: cool
22:43:01 <ofrnxmr[m]> The peer review is funded, were just awaiting a final version of the paper before beginning the review
22:43:19 <ofrnxmr[m]> (iirc)
22:43:36 <lukeprofits[m]> <ofrnxmr[m]> "Trust me, even though i voted..." <- It's just frustrating because it seems like the CCS doesn't really work well. Proposing BS gets pushed through, and actually useful stuff gets knocked off. Had a lot more faith in the CCS system prior to submitting one. Lol
22:43:46 <ofrnxmr[m]> Luke
22:44:09 <ofrnxmr[m]> It works, but some slimeballs slip through the cracks
22:44:12 <ofrnxmr[m]> Look at msvb's latet ccs attempt
22:44:47 <ofrnxmr[m]> Latest*
22:44:47 <ofrnxmr[m]> how did geonic's movie get pushed through? Money talks, i guess
22:45:26 <midipoet> ofrnxmr[m]: are you cheery in real life as well, or just on IRC?
22:46:16 <ofrnxmr[m]> I bring this up all the time.
22:46:16 <ofrnxmr[m]> honest folks are given a hard time. Scrutinized and made to fit standards.
22:46:16 <ofrnxmr[m]> dishonest scammers, manipulate or bully their way into getting funding.
22:46:16 <ofrnxmr[m]> its ridiculous
22:46:55 <ofrnxmr[m]> midipoet: In real life, of course
22:47:34 <midipoet> oh that's good to hear, cause for a while i thought it was just for us on IRC
22:47:49 <DaleYPearlman[m]> Do you know that you can earn $5,000 or more weekly from crypto Trading? With Just $500… 100% Inbox Admin on Telegram for more details 👇👇👇👇👇👇 https://t.me/PROFITSWITHSTEVE
22:49:40 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/411.pdf
22:49:48 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> was just reading this
22:49:58 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> Exploring the Monero Peer-to-Peer Network
22:50:20 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> 6 Conclusion... (full message at <https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/v3/download/libera.chat/bdf07257399832cfadbf76eba709974d340c49c4>)
22:50:45 <ofrnxmr[m]> midipoet:  are you referring to my comments about msvb's ccs (20k for badges)? Or about geonics(25k for a movie that doesnt feature monero)? Or that sarang (20k bp++) and kaya (50k fcmp) are scrutinized, while geonic get yolo merged + monerokon and @monero twittrr product placement + kon expenses, and msvb makes away with 15k + expenses of monerokon money
22:51:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> daley_: plowsof plowsof: 
22:52:41 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> how did the network layer privacy improved compare to before will we get any new stuff in the next upgrade
22:52:43 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> telescam
22:52:58 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> was it noise protocol
22:53:08 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> or white noise
22:54:08 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> Telegram sucks but that's where all the porn is at
22:54:13 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> Not that i watch any
22:54:24 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> Of course
22:54:27 <ofrnxmr[m]> Nothing major. The p2p connections of nodes are sent in the clear
22:55:01 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> yea that will be a big think to figure out
22:55:06 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> Hi ofrn
22:55:12 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> I'm that one guy
22:55:29 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> * figure out solution of more network layer privacy
22:55:42 <ofrnxmr[m]> Are you sure youre not two?
22:55:45 <ofrnxmr[m]> Girls?
22:56:52 <ofrnxmr[m]> M0x1zxq7896lp2ze: Monero.fail/map (use firefox based browser.. seems to crash chromium based stuff here)
22:57:19 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> I'm the one from the group chat
22:57:25 <bridgerton[m]> <Abo Gemaal el-Folani 👑> Where we speak about things
22:58:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> Ikik Monero Offtopic  tho lol
22:58:42 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> ofc
22:58:43 <M0x1zxq7896lp2ze> 🫠
23:04:40 <midipoet> ofrnxmr[m]: any and all of the affformentioned, in any and all orders. moral relativism is difficult, more so in decentralisation. i think it's good to remain open minded about the CCS and especially decisions that surround it. It's never going to be perfect. 
23:06:43 <midipoet> embrace the fact that many different people often want many different things. 
23:08:28 <midipoet> I know for a fact i'd be bored out of my mind if i had to read cryptography proposals all the time. 
23:08:57 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> embrace the scam artist 
23:09:00 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> ofrn
23:19:57 <ofrnxmr[m]> Difficult for who? 🚮 is 🚮 and scammers gonna scam
23:21:21 <ofrnxmr[m]> im happy to fund non-cryptography proposals. Not but bullshit merch at 100-300% markups, and pay for a private endeavor that does absolutely nothing for monero
23:23:29 <ofrnxmr[m]> And im really only referring to recent events
23:23:37 <ofrnxmr[m]> We could talk about the haveno frontend ccs
23:24:08 <ofrnxmr[m]> How the hell does that hot trash heap of a ccs go to funding? Vaporware to this day
23:24:59 <ofrnxmr[m]> Ccs said would have a frontend in 6 months. Over a year later, theres still no backend for this fake frontend scam
23:25:23 <ofrnxmr[m]> Erc isnt a dev. But we threw money at him because were suckers
23:26:37 <ofrnxmr[m]> Kaya does high level work, and has been paid 0$ from us. And is delivering the code.
23:35:41 <ofrnxmr[m]> This has nothing to do with being a hardass against non-technical ccs', and everything to do with giving scumbags the unreasonable benefit of the doubt.
23:35:41 <ofrnxmr[m]> 37 xmr for travel (6k), $50*400pieces(20k) for badges that cost 10k to produce (10k profit), which he retails to community members at $160. 
23:35:41 <ofrnxmr[m]> then the movie. _you_ got to see it. Its not available to the public. And even if it did win an oscar, the movie has less monero in it than an episode on netflix. Its about exploiting the death of a 16 year old kid. And we paid, not for the movie, but 1. To submit it to film festivals. Thst is all. If geonic wins at any of them, we pay out the second half of the 25k
23:36:29 <ofrnxmr[m]> "Community members".. more like vultures 
23:51:56 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> i reckon purgatory ccs project funds should be re purposed for dev funding or seraphis 
23:52:34 <DanrdarkIsnotthe> people donated money for a project and the person has bolted at least re purpose it