jeffro256[m]: did you see doxygen.nl/manual/config.html#cfg_extract_anon_nspaces ?

I looked at that page and didn't see it ! I'll def check it out thanks

though default should be NO

yeah someone changed it down the line so I'm git blaming it rn

IMO I've spent about 40 minutes combing though anonymous namespaces and there's not really much worth documenting

the unit_test folder is really bad about spamming the docs w anonymous namespaces also

Looks like it was changed as a tiny sliver of a huge overhaul like 6 years ago, I vote it revert that specific change

I'll open a PR in a lil bit

Ahhh, that's better

I will be away for 2 weeks and probably won't be able to install Element on my laptop properly. You can ping me on GitHub if there's need.

if you really need it, element web == element desktop.

I'll try. Thanks.

<mj-xmr[m]> "I will be away for 2 weeks and..." <- `you can use the web version of element like im doing. web version of element is super convenient when u dont wanna download the client on ur computer

OK, thanks to both of you. It seems to have worked fine :)

What about a meeting? We used to have weekly meetings during hf times

Meeting this weekend would be nice. We still have a few PRs not merged

just to double check: the getmonero.org/resources/developer-g…des/wallet-rpc.html#get_spend_proof spendproof does contain neither receiving address, nor amount, right? just proofing that a certain transaction was made by the one providing the spend proof?

s/get_spend_proof/get\_spend\_proof/, s/proofing/proving/

<spirobel[m]> "just to double check: the https:..." <- is that a question? the `check_spend_proof` example below shows that the only thing in the response is a boolean value of whether or not it is valid

you are not getting the correct response?

<reeemuru[m]> "you are not getting the correct..." <- I am just trying to make sure I understand correctly what it does. Does the signature contain any other information besides the fact that the sender made the transaction? what I am getting at: amount and destination address is still unknown to someone just seeing the outputs of get_spend_proof?

I have the same question for get_tx_proof: the amount is still unknown to the one seeing the information that get_tx_proof is outputing, right? The only difference to get_spend_proof is that the destionation address is part of the proof, correct?

but I saw that check_tx_proof also includes the amount:

tx proof has amt when validating

spend proof does not

thanks. This was the information I was looking for. 🙂

i guess an example use case is spend proof can validate a donation was done where amt doesnt matter

but tx proof could validate payment threshold where amt is required

sry if that is vague example

spirobel[m]: np

> <@reeemuru:matrix.org> i guess an example use case is spend proof can validate a donation was done where amt doesnt matter

> but tx proof could validate payment threshold where amt is required

> sry if that is vague example

haha this is the example I was thinking about lol I think it would be nice to verify donors but without the amounts visible to the public

sounds good, proofs are cool. you can do something login with valid proof amt too

reeemuru[m]: yes I also want to do this. But I will only send the tx_proof initially and later fall back to spend_proof because I read that tx_keys might be lost.

(I am working on a browser wallet)

I don't think this is how it's supposed to go

I think posting private messages without consent is childish and has no space in monero, especially not the dev channel. Maybe the beef channel would be more appropriate.

I think it's childish to hunt down the matrix of someone who down voted your ccs proposal

And ask if its because i have a problem against them personally and if i even understand the purpose of the css system

Instead of just addressing things publicly in the proposal, where it belongs

seems like you have a personal problem after all, otherwise we would see a more professional, pragmatic reaction and not such emotional outbursts.

off topic guys

Sorry

Not to you spirobel. I still very much believe I'm in the right to expose your bullshit.

@selsta Did you ever change your mind on monero-project/monero #8226?

If not I'll close it

I'll check if it produces any merge conflicts

.merges

Merge queue empty

binaries for v0.17.3.2 (CLI & GUI) are now available at getmonero.org

sech1: is the optimized keccak good to merge or do you want another review?

I think hyc reviewed it, but didn't click buttons on github

should be good

I also will make a PR that adds more tests to view tags

because p2pool can generate transactions with much more than 16 outputs

.merge+ 8220 8226 8235 8262 8278 8279

Added

more unit tests are always good :P

yes, current tests miss the case when there are more than 127 outputs and varint encoding kicks in

*more than 128 outputs