00:10:41 <m-relay_> <m​ayhem69:matrix.org> Probably better to ask in https://matrix.to/#/%23monero:monero.social
01:47:50 <m-relay_> <e​dreiestrada:matrix.org> thanks I will try
12:15:10 <m-relay_> <e​inliterflasche2:matrix.org> What is the recommended/intended way to check if a wallet is synced when using `wallet2_api.h`? The documentation on `synchronized` says it returns true if the wallet was _ever_ synchronized.
19:04:46 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> Does a transaction ever have more than one tx_key?
19:06:38 <moneromoooo> Yes. Some old ones do. It was a bug.
19:06:47 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> As I understand it if a transaction has multiple outputs paying multiple different subaddresses, then the transaction will have a different transaction keys for each output.
19:06:47 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> MRL-0006 states: "The use of separate transaction keys for each output allows Alice to include multiple outputs directed to
19:06:49 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> subaddresses"
19:07:08 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> But monero-wallet-rpc only returns a single tx_key
19:07:19 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> Ok so if I am using the latest wallet2 then transaction will never have more than one tx_key?
19:08:00 <moneromoooo> The tx extra field is pretty freeform. Someone may include whatever they like in it, and the tx will still be valid.
19:08:25 <moneromoooo> (beyond a size restriction)
19:14:10 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> Okay but assuming both parties exhibit standard behaviour?
19:14:12 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> All I want to do is extract the tx_key from a `PendingTransaction` in wallet2
19:15:55 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> How does this work for transfer proofs? Is any of the keys valid?
19:17:59 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> I have seen in some places in the codebase that tx_keys get concatenated when there are multiple ones ? Is that the standard behaviour one I follow ?
19:29:34 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> Zero to Monero also defines the OutProofV2 as having a singular tx_key. Does this mean you'd (in theory) need multiple transfer proofs for transactions with multiple tx keys?
19:56:12 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> As far as I understand it:
19:56:13 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> If I built a transaction and wallet2 decides to split it into multiple transactions then each transaction will get a seperate tx key and I need to construct multiple transfer proofs.
19:56:15 <m-relay_> <b​inarybaron:matrix.org> Is this correct ?
20:02:30 <moneromoooo> Yes.
23:56:56 <darkwolf93> hi folks, i’m building a custodial web wallet / p2p platform, users deposit xmr to an address we assign and can withdraw to their own wallet, inside the platform; user to user transfers with zero fees would be a nice feature if possible, i guess moving balances in our database would be the right pattern?
23:56:57 <darkwolf93> plan is one seed with per user subaddresses via monero wallet rpc, a view only watcher for deposits, a small hot wallet for withdrawals, and multiple wallet rpc processes if i need concurrency; any gotchas with lots of subaddresses like lookahead or wallet cache growth, and can you confirm that sending between my own subaddresses is still an on
23:56:58 <darkwolf93> chain tx with a fee, or is there a better pattern you recommend for a custodial p2p platform?
23:58:10 <m-relay_> <o​frnxmr:monero.social> moving own subaddresses is in fact on chain with a fee