It is not ignored if sending pre rct outputs.

What values of `ring_size`, `mixins` will use monero-wallet-cli if I just type transfer <address> <amount>?

the ringsize is mandatory now, it will use 16

thanks moo hyc! mixin is just the total numbers of signatures (other than your own right?) 15+1

It's the number of fake outs in a ring (so ring size minus 1).

And technically ring size can be less than 16 for pre-rct outs with not enough outs of the right amount on the chain.

I just test a monero-wallet-rpc. I use "transfer" method, but my wallet was in read only state (I don't import spend key).

> 2022-11-10 11:49:48.027 [RPC0] WARNING wallet.wallet2 src/wallet/wallet2.cpp:6456 saving 1 transactions

Where is my tx right now?

How can I send such a transaction after adding a spending key?

You might to set a "get me the tx back" in the query. After that, you can use... send_raw_tx IIRC on monerod.

Oh wait.

No spend key, should have failed the transfer.

er, brain fart. Ignore my last line.

The signing is done by another wallet with the spend key.

I don't set "get me the tx back" and got only tx_hash.

sign_transfer IIRC. And there is a submit_transfer too after it's back to the original wallet.

Look at how the test does it in tests/functional_tests/cold_signing.py

reg pre_rct outs + ringsize, thanks moo!

If I add my spend key and restart monero-wallet-rpc, this transaction won't be sent yes?

And I can just make a another roc-request with method = 'transfer' and due to my spent key a new tx will be signed and broadcasted?

The rpc request with `method=transfer` only creates a transaction, but does not broadcast it?

I can not understand why the transaction is not sent if only the "transfer" request is made.

have you guys considered adding state root calculation like Ethereum

(Monero state being outputs + key images, I believe?)

ArtemVorotnikov[: afaik that’s a no. What advantage would that bring to monero?

<UkoeHB> "Artem Vorotnikov: afaik that’s a..." <- - Light clients that could trustlessly restore state without recomputing history, potentially replacing full validation even

- Cross-validation between implementations of full node that the computed state is actually correct

ArtemVorotnikov[: off the top of my head I don’t object - it’s quite a massive r&d project though.

Right now you could write a light client that only validates block headers. Recomputing just proof of work isn’t that bad compared to validating all txs

Not sure you could actually get away with NOT validating block headers

<UkoeHB> "Artem Vorotnikov: off the top of..." <- We at Akula/Erigon/Silkworm do have incremental state root computation w/o actually storing state objects as merkle tree - this could even be copypasted verbatim into monerod

State root would also have to be committed into header hash tho

UkoeHB: header chain is mandatory of course, but could be back pruned after some time - effective finality basically

maybe I'm misunderstand something - what is the state root exactly? not a merkle root of txs in each block?

PSA: The Seraphis wallet workgroup has its first regular meeting this coming Monday 18:00 UTC, see here: monero-project/meta #751

Interested parties welcomed to join, and also to comment on the existing written issues: github.com/seraphis-migration/wallet3/issues

The newest such issue tells about why I proposed to talk, from all possible things, about naming in that first meeting: seraphis-migration/wallet3 #35

(There are other reasons of course, we are simply not yet capable to talk about many other aspects yet, because work on the wallet did not sufficiently progress yet to do so.)

rbrunner is that matrix room not linked to IRC?

Lyza: it is not

welp. guess I gotta sign up for matrix now

creating a room on IRC and joining it from matrix is way simpler than the other way around and wouldn't lock out half of the users :/

If someone wants to set that up, go for it

this should work from matrix and irc #no-wallet-left-behind:libera.chat

irc users have to just enter #no-wallet-left-behind