00:12:48 <xmrscott> According to rehrar all clear has been given, so that clears up that :)
01:12:39 <wowario> "tevador: FWIW, my proposal for wownero was to sign with the one-time transaction spend key, AKA the "stealth address", which would not require any changes to the coinbase tx format as the public key is already included there"
01:13:05 <wowario> https://monerologs.net/monero-pow/20210527
01:13:46 <wowario> the proposal was to use tx private "spend" key (r)
01:14:34 <jtgrassie> the tx private key is r (part of the shared secret) which has nothing to do with spendability
01:15:21 <jtgrassie> rA = aR <- shared secret
01:16:36 <jtgrassie> R is the tx pub key, r is the random priv key, a is the recipient priv view key
01:17:09 <jtgrassie> r is considered the tx private key
01:18:29 <wowario> right, that was the intention 
01:22:26 <jtgrassie> but you misunderstand, you need the wallets private spend key
01:24:43 <jtgrassie> Hs(rA)+b
01:28:05 <wowario> no, I didn't. I implemented what was proposed. but yes, using the wallet's spend key would be better.
01:30:59 <jtgrassie> it's not a case of "better", its the only way (for what you're trying to do)
01:31:56 <jtgrassie> x = Hs(rA)+b
01:32:08 <jtgrassie> b = wallet spend key
01:32:28 <jtgrassie> x = signing key to spend the output
01:32:36 <wowario> got it
01:33:23 <wowario> thank
01:33:30 <wowario> you for the feedback 
01:35:16 <jtgrassie> (and Hs(rA)+b is just shorthand, it excludes 8 and i)
01:43:18 <UkoeHB> what's the relative speed of creating a simple crypto signature vs computing a randomX hash?
01:44:51 <UkoeHB> no it doesn't matter
01:45:58 <UkoeHB> is there a github issue discussing this topic?
01:54:20 <jtgrassie> and wowario, "sign with the one-time transaction spend key" means x = Hs(rA)+b, so tevador's proposal is correct, you just got it wrong
01:55:32 <wowario> https://git.wownero.com/wownero/meta/issues/28
01:55:57 <jtgrassie> you're signing with r (the tx private key) not x, "the one-time transaction spend key"
01:59:12 <wowario> I know, it is r. I'll look at making changes tomorrow.
02:03:13 <jtgrassie> there's otehr stuff you'll need to do too
02:05:28 <UkoeHB> I think is both a good and a bad idea. Good: pool centralization basically impossible. Bad: mining experience way worse because no steady income from pools = fewer miners (maybe a LOT fewer miners) = easier to 51% attack (tbh unlikely, because profit margins unlikely to increase to more than ~20%).
02:30:39 <jtgrassie> pools are essential to the security of a coin, time should be focused on addressing their faults, not brandishing pooled mining as simply "bad"
02:32:51 <jtgrassie> fwiw I think there's something in header signing, just not in this motivation to remove pooled mining (which is merely cooperative work)
02:33:48 <jtgrassie> and obviously not in this broken implementation
02:37:39 <jtgrassie> for example, if all the miners of a pool have control of the coinbase in some way, that's good, but there needs to be a way to ensure no one steals
06:48:55 <Inge-> the one suggestion I've heard so far was that miners would need to submit a block reward worth of deposit to counteract stealing
10:21:47 <h4sh3d> is there some checks/enforced limits in monerod about the size of an allocation based on a varint when deserializing e.g. a transaction/block?
10:23:40 <zkao> ␎
10:26:13 <wfaressuissia[m]> there are no such precise limits
15:32:45 <selsta> .merges
15:32:45 -xmr-pr- 7349 7683 7730 7733 7734 7738
18:59:51 <selsta> .merge+ 7676
19:00:02 <selsta> .merges
19:00:02 -xmr-pr- 7349 7683 7730 7733 7734 7738
19:00:09 <selsta> .merge+ 7676
19:00:18 <selsta> hmm
19:00:41 <selsta> .merges
19:00:41 -xmr-pr- 7349 7683 7730 7733 7734 7738
19:02:11 <selsta> fluffypony: can moneromooo and I get permanent voice in this channel?
19:02:24 <selsta> required for the bot as a security measure
19:02:29 <fluffypony> on it
19:03:08 <selsta> .merge+ 7676
19:03:08 <xmr-pr> Added
19:03:10 <selsta> thanks