Is something like BCH's Flipstarter possible with Monero transactions? Inquiring minds would like to know. I have heard that Monero's script capabilities are more limited than BCH's.

Background reading:

There are no scripts in monero.

Ok I have more information about exactly how Flipstarter works. Quoting a BCH dev:

"Every coin in bch is locked and unlocked by a script but p2pkh is so standard that it’s kinda treated as not a script."

"To answer your question each input is a plain coin like any other. However the wallet signs a partial transaction where the output is set in stone and the signature type is anyone-can-pay so that the signature covers only the pledger’s input."

"Ie it’s not a p2sh. It uses a particular sighash flag. Not sure if those are available in monero""

Hi, is Monero still using hardcoded IP's/Hostnames in the code for initial peer discovery ?

yes

which file ? can't find it

thanks!

there are also different seed nodes for tor/i2p

Are there any plans to remove them ? like in this idea: reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/f6y8xn…_idea_maybe_someone_can_write_it_up

hello

wfaressuissia debug here paste.debian.net/1210366

good, reading it now

"paste.debian.net/hidden/26f00093" recompile with it in order to see everything in gdb

and paste gdb backtrace for the next error

what is your environment (compiler, os)?

ok

debian os

paste.debian.net/1210372 wfaressuissia

"monero-project/monero #7803/files#diff-85f0577b849d28c11a899cb863aec3df1d946e0bb214a623deef05928271fef6R2548" very "smart" change

revert this line in 7803 patch and error will disappear

this patch?

it's expected that you're experiencing error only with master branch + 7803 + something else, is it correct ?

yes

"monero-project/monero #7803/files#diff-85f0577b849d28c11a899cb863aec3df1d946e0bb214a623deef05928271fef6R2548" is it clear how to revert this line in 7803 patch ?

src/p2p/net_node_common.h i insert red lines and remove green

ok?

scroll a bit up in github, highlighted line is hidden

ah line 2548 src/p2p/net_node.inl

yes, only that single line

so all eror was a "&" !!!!!!!!!

no words!

you are capable to review that pr now

i i have no github account

create temporary one

"paste.debian.net/1210372 wfaressuissia" before this comment It was expected that you're experiencing error with either unmodified release-v0.17 or master, but turned out it was always +7803 at least

please, specify always source code that you're using

ok

"well whatever im running on xmrchain.net has been up for 70 days" gingeropolous, cool

wfaressuissia line 2548 is with "&" !

i checked now on my source code!

try_ping(arg.node_data, context, [peer_id_l, port_l, &context, this]()

and reverted one should be without '&'

ok!

wfaressuissia i confirm that revert worked

no more crashes

can u explain what that "&" did

it helped to summon segfault

I would explain, but I'm busy with something more important

ok thnx a lot

& saves a reference to the object, as opposed to copying it. If the object goes out of scope before the ref gets dereferenced, it accesses stale memory.

thnx moneromooo

moneromooo: What did you think about what the BCH dev said about sighash flags? Might Monero have these sighash flags? I am out of my depth here.

I don't know how bitcoin works, so I have thought about it.

I doubt monero has sighash flags.

For locking/unlocking, the only two things you can use in monero is unlock_time and double spending.

Hi ladies and ladiesmen, I've downloaded the full blockchain, and I want to setup 3 of my PC's to connect to my server and mine using that db, how would I do that ?

* Hi ladies and ladiesmen, I've downloaded the full blockchain, and I want to setup 3 of my PC's to connect to my server and mine using that db, how would I do that ?

Also if this is the wrong room for these type of questions, please point me in the correct direction :D

#monero

Or #monero-pools, which should know about proxies and the like you might need.

Or you might want to try the new p2pool instead.

p2pool.io/how

okok

ty

Rucknium[m]: to get the pattern where N arbitrary people fund pre-defined outputs, you would require active participation of all N people to construct the tx.

Oh, is it the "a single tx where several people send/sign", so the spending is atomic ?

moneromooo I explain it more in the reddit comment I linked above. So my understanding is that the transaction is partially signed by each participant. Once you as a contributor do your signing, no further action is required. When the last contributor tops off the budget request, a many-to-one (or many-to-many if multiple recipients are specified) transaction is broadcast.

This is the transaction that funded my recent Flipstarter proposal, for example:

blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transac…54ebb758fc1d5fbe1fc35bd082eb90cd515

UkoeHB: So they would have to do it synchronously, not asynchronously like Flipstarter? Like schedule a specific time to get coordinate I suppose?

This is possible in monero, then. I have preliminary code that does that, but it's pretty complicated, and I gave up on it because it was inherently leaking the spent outputs to other signers.

If you do not care about this, then... you'd have to finish the code.

It was a PoC level only.

You'd get several rounds though. I think 3.

* specific time to coordinate

Rucknium[m]: it can be asynch but requires multiple rounds. If you have 20 people cooperating, then all it takes is 1 of them to block the whole process.

UkoeHB: Hmm interesting. With Flipstarter, contributors can cancel their pledges at any time by spending their contribution coin back to themselves. Cancellations don't block the process at all.

Why make it a merged tx then ? Space ?

It's all-or-nothing. If the fund goal isn't reached, no funds are transferred. It operationalized the idea of an assurance contract

<moneromooo> "Why make it a merged tx then..." <- Only here they constantly call me using my nickname (Space)😅

I don't think that this is just an academic discussion about the capabilities of Monero vs BCH. There has been a lot of tension recently about "what should CCS be funding"? Part of that tension derives from the somewhat permissioned nature of CCS.

Well if the technical capabilities aren’t there it’s kinda a dead end, unless you can come up with a solid technical solution.

CCS literally stands for Community Crowdfunding System. it should fund whatever the community wants it to fund.

UkoeHB: Right. So is the final word what you said about one person being able to block the process, so it wouldn't stand up to adversarial attack?

The recent tension you refer to is just noise.

hyc: To me, it is clearly not just noise. It caused Monerujo to abandon their CCS proposal and try their own way of requesting contributions:

Ah I see. It should be possible in monero as well. Every person signs their ring(s).

:D

moneromooo: Thank you for looking into it.

To be clear, I'm not looking into it.

I have in the past, but I have no interest it dusting it back into shape,

I mean, you looked into it by checking to see if it would be possible. I didn't mean to imply that you would do further thinking or looking

I can find the code if someone else wants to though and want to reuse it.

I don't think "a lot of tension" is a fair characterization at all. A project decided to go its own way for funding.

There is this

And in the recent past this

that latter one is, IMO, more about for-profit corporations soliciting community donations. which is in poor taste IMO

if you're a for-profit corp and need funding to get off the ground, give each backer shares of the company. that's capitalism.

donation-based funding should only be for nonprofit efforts.

This is exactly what I am referring to. With a permissionless, self-hosted, noncustodial approach like Flipstarter, there would really be no questions about what "the community" should fund. Flipstarter is just individuals autonomously cooperating to ensure that capital meets labor and produces something useful to someone.

moneromooo: the current protocol is not well-suited to Rucknium’s usecase because it is not resistant to attackers. All inputs sign the same msg (all tx data) which means all inputs must be known before you sign. A malicious participant can block other signers by just not signing. I think it is feasible to change this at the protocol level, so CLSAGs only sign their own content and the tx outputs. This way inputs are

independent of each other.

Then, if there is a malicious individual, the tx author can just find another person to finish funding the tx.

It would not at all be a replacement for the existing CCS. The CCS definitely has certain advantages over Flipstarter. For instance, with CCS there is a defined process for proposal feedback before asking for funds. Ensuring accountability from the proposer is also more difficult since the funds are released immediately upon the fund target being reached.

lack of accountability sounds like a non-starter

Flipstarter has funded 79 projects with over 9000 BCH. It has been working reasonably well for BCH. Just an idea. I am trying to see inefficiencies and overcome them if possible.

For Flipstarter's difficulties with accountability, see

philosophically it'd be like zero-conf txns: I'd trust it only with small amounts that i don't care about losing

The accountability problem can be mitigated by setting up a repeated game: Do funding in stages. That's what my proposal did:

flipstarter.redteam.cash

Proposers having reputations also helps mitigate the accountability issue.

Solar freakin' roadways!

I mean, do what you want. I am not the right person to champion this nor implement it. I am just trying to determine if it is possible and laying out a case for it.

(congrats on getting fully funded!)

plowsof: Thanks! It was funded within just 48 hours of going live. I'm going to submit a CCS soon too, to work on the mixin selection algorithm with jberman. Then I will write a comparative review of CCS and Flipstarter :)

how to change block reward not fees only block reward

marasli: can't be changed

why

Them's the breaks

for fork not monero

Gotta go look at the code I guess ^.^

i'm not sure, i checked

"DYNAMIC_FEE_PER_KB_BASE_BLOCK_REWARD must be divisible by 1000000" why?

are there any people here that use `make release-static` regularly instead of `make depends`?

monero-project/monero #7773 might make `make release-static` more complicated because static unbound has to be compiled manually

but I don't know how much we should care about it

I do. Though I usually monkey with the cmake line for it.

I wouldn't be overly annoyed by having to build unbound separately though.