<321bob321> monero-project/monero-gui #4533

<321bob321> got the same issue again. Not sure if the ledger update fixed it or closing and opening fixed it

-,merge+ 4627

;_;

.merge+ 4627

lol

.merge+ 4631

Added

<jpk68:matrix.org> Hear ye, hear ye, do we have any opinions on this UI layout?

<jpk68:matrix.org> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/gYbxpnrxMAZciUWEyezsoySj.png (clipboard.png)

<jpk68:matrix.org> Another variant:

<jpk68:matrix.org> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/cofmKJEjMajDPWlZWpMmjfOH.png (clipboard.png)

<jpk68:matrix.org> The tabs could also look like the selection in SettingsNode, maybe

i prefer the first

<ravfx:xmr.mx> Let me know where there is a new version to test on windows platform!

<jpk68:matrix.org> Here is yet another option:

<jpk68:matrix.org> mrelay.p2pool.observer/m/matrix.org/UuXBBSCCMNRrIloTATRMGmSq.png (clipboard.png)

<jpk68:matrix.org> This one could also use the other I2P logo rather than the mascot

should socks5 setting be moved there from interface?

so you have none, socks5, i2p

i think the last screenshot has the best design so far

<jpk68:matrix.org> selsta: It's hard to gauge whether or not that will be easy to do. But if it is, I don't see why not

should be easy, just design wise it needs be be clear that i2p is a daemon setting while socks5 is a gui setting

<jpk68:matrix.org> How would you give an indication of that other than just text?

you could also have socks5 gui + i2p hmm so ignore for now

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Does socks5 also apply to --proxy on monerod?

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> I think the problem with the screen is that it it is a choice between i2p and nothing, when you can technically run i2p + onion + tor(socks)

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> So perhaps, if moving a socks option there, it should be for the daemon's --proxy

no, socks5 does not apply --proxy to monerod

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> Whereas the main setting's socks option is for the wallet?

yes, when using a remote node, and for stuff like fiat price

<jpk68:matrix.org> ATM I think I will go with what's in the last screenshot, without SOCKS5

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> The last screenshot will need to be redone as soon as someone adds proxy or onion support

<ofrnxmr:xmr.mx> So i'd nack on premise that it should expect to be have those added at some point

<jpk68:matrix.org> Okay, so the first then?

well the first also can only select one

so it's not better just different design

<jpk68:matrix.org> How do you suggest doing this then?

I don't know, thinking about this has always overwhelmed me that's why there was never any proper Tor / I2P integration and people had to set custom daemon flags.

socks5 can apply to daemon or wallet, tor can apply to daemon-wide and tx only, i2p has sam and socks5 and tx only

getting this done in a neat way is next to impossible or I don't have the creativity for it

also settings can be combined but only with specific rules

<jpk68:matrix.org> Okay, good to know. I still think one of the three sent above should be fine for now, as it works just like it should

<jpk68:matrix.org> The anonymity networks tab only appears in the 'Advanced' mode of the GUI anyways

<jpk68:matrix.org> If there are breaking changes later, well, we can just deal with that when it happens :P

Why is I2P SAM getting an entry but not Tor for example? Like that needs a rationale before it's merged. And I know you are funded to add I2P SAM support, I'm talking about from a GUI maintainer perspective.

<jpk68:matrix.org> Because Tor is just a SOCKS proxy, no?

<jpk68:matrix.org> There is also the Tor Control protocol but we don't support that (yet)

Yes, but how is this relevant for the end user if it's using SOCKS5 or not for having Tor integration in the GUI?

I don't see anything inherently relevant for SAM that it needs a GUI entry while Tor does not, both just set IP / port?

<jpk68:matrix.org> The SAM support baked into the GUI (specifically, the page for it) exists to allow the user to have only the GUI software configured, without requiring outside configuration. If you want to use Tor or I2P SOCKS, you download the software for that and manually set up the SOCKS tunnel(s). For SAM, you just get the software running without the second step

<jpk68:matrix.org> IMO the existence of such a pathway for 'easy' setup justifies them being separate at this point in time

but for Tor you just have to run it and it already has a default IP / port, I never saw how SAM is easier but maybe I'm missing something

I just don't want to merge something that is incompatible with other settings design wise and will need to be reworked in the future

<jpk68:matrix.org> Fair, but if that's the case then it would be good to have some criteria for that :)

design wise, I think it makes most sense to add it to Settings -> Node

<jpk68:matrix.org> I would not mind reworking general proxy stuff in the GUI, but that seems to be beyond the scope of this current work

the bootstrap daemon address / port box is getting removed

that makes it clear that the setting is applied to a local node and local node only

having a separate tab makes it unclear where the setting is applied

<jpk68:matrix.org> That does make sense