atomfried[m]: ok no problem :) I think optimizing it is also of interest to the Firo guys, so maybe they will come up with something

or the equivalent in their code base

"This may also have been an ill-fated attempt at “churning”. " >>> woof

"My code identified 4 transactions which included more than 1 flagged TXO in their rings."

hmmhmm so apparently - any - consolidation of TXOs is highly likely to be suspect, and any spending which happens at a different interval compared to using the respective TXO as mixin

vicsn2: What do you mean by "suspect"?

any consolidation is traceable if Eve knows all your inputs i.e. multiple exchange withdrawals -> consolidation tx is traceable by that exchange and everyone it shares data with

so churning (sweep_single with random intervals) after consolidation is recommended

Do we have enough research on churning to recommend churning? My sense is that it is an open research question

no research, only some vague guidelines

like don't churn as soon as 10-block limit expires :D

and churn only 1 output at a time (which will be 1 output after consolidation anyway)

sech1: If we had a better mixin selection algorithm (ahem), this behavior might be safe, too.

I trust sech1's response answered your question. There is more to research yes. Surae (previous MRL lead) worked for a long time on a somewhat fundamental analysis on the impact of ring sizes/churning on anonimity but I don't think he ever finished or published it, and it may have not have included factors such as the timing of churning

Given that users are doing it, it may be a good idea to prioritize research on it.

yes, the timing. Don't churn exactly at 4:20PM every day :D Randomize intervals on the scale of hours to days

Something that I've noticed is that there are several dozen external researchers at this point who have written about Monero. One path forward is to put out an RFP (Request For Proposals), maybe targeted at them specifically, to fund research on priorities, like churning for instance.

Moser et al. (2018) alone now has 83 citations. Most of the citations are in passing, but a few papers are about Monero specifically.

and I've never heard any good recommendations for what you do with a gazillion small mining outputs (made more relevant recently with p2pool)

like, say you have 500 UTXO's over a year - but they are all pretty tiny. You consolidate them over a few transactions - which are all linkable I presume... which might be a giveaway that it is likely consolidation of many outputs over a long time... Then churn the resulting output a few times I guess, and don't consolidate with any other outputs you have?

For some reason my new CCS proposal isn't showing up properly, but you can read it here with this secret link:

yah know, i was just about to comment that after years of ...... effort, it was nice to see in sgp_ 's linked article that the blockchain investigator called them ring members and decoys

and then Rucknium[m] goes and calls them mixins

:P

Kill mixins

Rucknium I'm not sure what to do with this: "What should not be publicly revealed, in my view, is the method of choosing that probability distribution."

This would monopolize talent, no?

Meeting in this room in less that 1 hour

Unfortunately I will not be able to be consistently present through the hour.

I'm happy to do logs etc. afterwards

oh forgot lol, yeah

gingeropolous: If there is a "best practice" of what to call them, I am happy to change the proposal. I think moneromooo has called them fake outs, too, so we have three names for them to choose from. I call them mixins because that's what Moser et al. (2018) call them.

sgp_: What do you mean by "monopolize talent"? I was thinking that keeping it secret actually sort of makes OSPEAD fall into a classification as a trade secret in many jurisdictions. That means that anyone outside of trying to gain knowledge of it in an authorized way would possibly be committing industrial espionage in some jurisdictions.

Not that I really care for using the state's monopoly on violence, but still, it's an interesting thought.

I think 'decoys' is the preferred generic term.

UkoeHB: If that's the consensus, I will change the term in the proposal

I generally use fake outs, because that's what they are in the code. Ring members is a good user level term.

Well, I guess ring members include all of them, fake and real.

hi guys, MRL meeting starts now: monero-project/meta #613

1. greetings

hello

Hi

Hello

Hi there

hello

Hi

hello

hello, lurking

Like last time, we will skip general updates in favor of agenda items.

2. Analysis of July-Aug 2021 tx volume anomaly; big thanks to Isthmus for writing an interesting report (mitchellpkt.medium.com/fingerprinti…ero-transaction-volume-a19cbf41ce60) and to everyone who helped put that together.

hey

hi

I have 6 actionable implications of the research, but I want any question about the results to appear first

Great insights in your report, isthmus!

My take on the tx volume anomaly is that yes, such a thing can happen and isn't 'unexpected' in the sense that we expected it couldn't happen. The dynamic block and fee algorithms are designed to resist spam when blocks are larger than the minimum penalty free zone. However, this is a good opportunity to review our expectations there.

It is worth noting that this spam event did not really push into the dynamic block range.

Did the spammer avoid doing so, or was that a coincidence?

That's a good question. I am somewhat ignorant about the exact parameters of the current fee policy

i don't think its possible to know if they avoided it or if it was coincidence.

Well, was their peak just barely below the penalty area? If so, that may indicate some sort of deliberate avoidance

hello

Yeah I think there was a period of time when blocks filled the penalty free zone consistently.

My list of actionable implications:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…1e1985f970069053a4e175c62d7ebdad9f6)

Hello hello

I wonder if they just queued up a bunch of transactions with a low fee and were happy with them just sitting in the mempool for a while

one thing i ponder is if its worth getting rid of the penalty free zone, and if that would help antiflood

any chance we have mempool stats?

not super important, just curiosu

sgp_: I was wondering the same. We didn't use them in our analysis, but mempool stats could augment our analysis. I think some websites collect mempool data.

how are y'all doing today

I recall watching the mempool consistently empty and fill up while this was going on, but that's more anecdotal

Rucknium[m]:

1. I doubt this can be accelerated beyond showing up in #monero-dev and getting the ball rolling if it is meandering (current plan seems some time this winter? lol)

2. I have some estimate in ZtM2 section 7.3.4 footnote 32

3. no comment (anyone can implement what they want :) )

4. no comment (exploring things requires no opinion)

5. dito

6. dito

I have somehow monitored the mempool frequently, but never seen more like 300 tx in it

I wonder how a counter-attack could probably look ...

gingeropolous: I think the original idea for min penalty free zone is to avoid friction when there is low tx volume, where tx volume fluctuations can have large relative magnitude.

right. it was like training wheels. there is consistent tx activity now

Based on the ring member age analysis I did, I think the entity somewhat staggered their transactions. Like, if it was balls-to-the-wall, then we would be seeing more ring members from the 10th most recent block. instead, it was more spread out over blocks #10-15

having someone take on #3 would be a cool task

yeah a monero network monitor would be neat.

rbrunner: I imagine that someone could write a script with an easy UI and let Monero community members have it. Then if a real flood attack is detected, initiate decentralized flood counter-attack. This is a last resort, though, since it would bloat the blockchain. Miners would be very happy, though

I think isthmus is particular is in a good position to do #3. Maybe he could submit a CCS

Ah, you mean if we suspect the flood is there as an attempt to deanonymize. Makes sense.

I think Rucknium[m] has some good action items on the topic of tx spam. Does anyone else have action items to pursue? We can give this topic a few more minutes.

Am I understanding right that the coming update to the dynamic fee algo still wouldn't have increased the cost to spam in this particular case?

it seems the fact is that the monero network can be flooded. we know this. ringsigs need other txs on the blockchain to work, so penalizing blockchain usage isn't great.

Rucknium[m]: couldnt this encourage miners to perform flood attacks?

best thing to do at the moment is just make a "wish list", starting with the basic stuff you want a v1 of the tool to have

Yeah, have a Monero Defense Corps waiting in the wings. Also, the existence of a counterattack capability itself could deter a flood attack. It is like nuclear mutually assured destruction.

jberman: fee update increases minimum fee by 5x, unless I am misremembering (ArticMine ?)

start with the ez stuff

Rucknium[m]: Monero Armed Forces 😎

UkoeHB got it so it would've cost ~$5k instead of ~$1k

UkoeHB: 4x

oh woopty doo

yeah obviously a government could just spam if they wanted to

but in practice poisoned outputs are more effective

On Rucknium[m]'s [2] (Conduct calculations for costliness of a "real" flood attack and de-anonymization probability), would probably make sense to incorporate the fee change into this

> <@rucknium:monero.social> My list of actionable implications:... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…4f4a18059ae873e8f199978659bce663329)

😎😎😎

M030AAAYAD: speaking of that there's prolly someone part of a government readin dis rn 👀

ok let's move on to...

3. MRL META: Active recruitment of technical talent, MRL structure; this is Rucknium[m]'s agenda item.

Yes the minimum node relay fee goes up 5x in the penalty free zone'

thanks ArticMine

On agenda item #3: It seems that some balls are getting dropped on important MRL activities. Or, rather, it is not anyone's specific responsibility to ensure that certain key tasks get done, like:

Ensure that we are aware of all Monero-related academic publications and see how they can be useful. And also when outside entities do work for MRL, what is the mechanism to make sure the work gets done?

Moser et al. (2018) "An Empirical Analysis of Traceability in the Monero Blockchain" alone now has 84 citations. I think we are missing important papers. I've started to go through them myself

on the last question, that would fall under the scope of the specific funding platform (eg: CCS or MAGIC)

How does CCS know that a task has been satisfactorily completed, though?

CCS is not necessarily in a great position to know that

I am thinking spedifically of the confusion over Cypher Stack's Triptych work.

You would have to ask luigi I suppose, but that proposal is effectively stalled indefinitely because we don't need more research there

oh?

yeah unless you want to have the remaining funds go to something that we won't use

Anyway, mostly I want to throw a maybe somewhat controversial idea into the ring, and let it simmer for a week or so. The idea is not new, in fact. Maybe it would be good for MRL to have a lab manager or director to ensure that certain key tasks get done.

so research into triptych multisig is complete, and it was deemed too complex, and we're waiting on seraphis etc?

This idea was brought up in the comments here:

That is an interesting question - what happens to funds in funded proposals that get stalled/canceled?

gingeropolous: See, this is the confusion I'm talking about

UkoeHB: general fund iirc

in general the core team would gobble up the funds and ridistribute as they see fit

Makes sense, thanks

not sure re: director/manager title, but in the past it was nice to have full-time people where part of their responsibilities was keeping up-to-date on the latest papers

<UkoeHB> That is an interesting question - what happens to funds in funded proposals that get stalled/canceled? <-- they are moved to general fund

Yes, that was a well established part of work then

judging from sarang's reports

yeah sarang's reports would always include the papers he reviewed that period

is there currently any cryptographer hired or working on seraphis? i know of coinstudent2048 and UkoeHB could the triptych multisig CCS just be used for seraphis research?

atomfried[m]: it is only coinstudent2048[ and I as volunteers right now

Given the amount we currently have in the general fund and the speed with which quality CCS proposals are funded, funding in general is IMO not an issue at all to support some MRL "positions", manager or other

UkoeHB, would u have the bandwidth to take on funded work for seraphis?

Another point that's on my mind: If we go to institutions seeking collaboration, we would receive a better response if the cold-call email went something like, "Hi, I'm Director of MRL". Rather than "Hi, I'm with MRL."

personally, i dunno about the manager idea. if there are things like keeping up on articles, perhaps we just make that a default piece of any ccs funded MRL work

I am already working on it full time, but if you want to pay me I won't complain :)

what i mean is that will a bucket of monero make the work go faster ? because thats how that works, righT? :)

No not faster

<crypto_grampy[m]> "> <@rucknium:monero.social> My..." <- i'd super be up for helping - it's "conferences & releases season" now @ fiat job, so, kinda strapped 😅

I am sure sooner or later some temptations will show up for UkoeHB where payment could make the difference pro Monero

IMHO, paying people for essential work establishes a good precedent, regardless of if it is "needed" in any particular case.

In a positive sense, of course.

rbrunner: I already plan to do other stuff once there is nothing more to do re:Seraphis. But until then I am here full time.

Which could be quite some time if Monero really switches to that, I suspect

Perhaps

Or is the work on "theory" usually quite limited?

UkoeHB: Are you considering submitting a CCS proposal? I think it would be much welcomed.

maybe we can just start using the term "committee" loosely. eg: "Hi I'm Justin, a member of the Monero Research Lab funding committee", etc

means nothing but should be enough to get in the door lol

I wasn't planning on it - I was hoping it would be done already, but I really misjudged the time required.

This looks like a classic case of "Shut up and take my money" :)

lol.

sgp_: Maybe "board"? But that sounds pretty formal and may need some sort of decision.

IMO, this MRL structure conversation can go on forever.

if you have a vision, make it happen, and ask for forgiveness not permission.

rbrunner: the theory is good already imo (aside from adding security model/proofs), but implementing the core parts requires a lot of time. I do have a bit of scope creep on exactly how far I want to go with my PoC.

gingeropolous: Establishing something like a manager or director kind of requires permission, though.

(are messages from sgp_ not relayed to irc or just me?)

they come through as M030AAAYAD

ginger: ty

UkoeHB: Seraphis etc. can't die at PoC stage, though. What are the plans for getting it to a production stage?

Well, once there is a PoC then other coders could pull it across the finish line. However, I am thinking to have a PoC 95% production ready.

^

I'm okay with people choosing any title here tbh, so long as there is some reference that they need to talk with others for a final decision, lol

With multisig within reach because much simpler than with Triptych?

rbrunner: yeah I started on it today, should require only a few hundred lines at most

the core parts anyway

Wow

UkoeHB: will you do formal proofs for Seraphis?

sgp_: coinstudent2048[ is helping me with that

oh nice

is there a conference submission deadline you are hoping to hit?

no I won't do a conference; formatting is way too PITA

nice

Plus my writing style is yucky to the people on those committees :p

IMHO, we'll need academic peer review, at the very least, for any new signature scheme for Monero. But UkoeHB doesn't have to do that part, of course.

Should we move to the next agenda item? We have 15 mins remaining

So if all goes well there will soon be a time for a first round of reviews / audits already?

So we find a collaborator(s) to assist with the presentation / peer review part

is 15 mins enough time for "Improvements to the mixin selection algorithm ( Decoy Selection Algorithm - Areas to Improve, JBerman's recent update ) @j-berman @Rucknium"

Sure. The remaining items have already been covered in other meetings, so we don't have to do them in order. Let's do open discussion. Here are the other items

4. Improvements to the mixin selection algorithmTriptych vs. alternatives ( Lelantus Spark , Seraphis , Tripych Multisig )

Removing/fixing/encrypting unlock time

gingeropolous: Well, we can start the discussion at least. I think so, yes

whoops

4. Improvements to the mixin selection algorithm

5. Triptych vs. alternatives ( Lelantus Spark , Seraphis , Tripych Multisig )

6. Removing/fixing/encrypting unlock time

On improvements, rehashing these are the 4 areas to improve

I have now (finally) submitted my CCS proposal for OSPEAD here:

1. Integer truncation in the wallet (e.g.: `3 / 2 = 1`)

2. Binning

3. Modifying the distribution estimator (@Rucknium spearheading this)

4. Validating correct algo used at consenus

> So if all goes well there will soon be a time for a first round of reviews / audits already?

Idk how soon, since I need my PoC for the efficiency section, but my PoC still needs a bunch of work.

Rucknium[m]: the issue is that incremental improvements that are needed for a running project like this are harder to publish because they're typically no breakthroughs, just incremental

The formatting is not visible for some reason, so you can read it here:

I don't think we have time for them in this meeting (since I don't want to derail it), but I certainly have reservations with this given 1) I have no idea what it is since I haven't seen the report, and 2) not sharing the reasoning behind the implementation publicly is probably going to do more harm than good imo

sgp_: I can check with the Vulnerability Response Process (i.e. moneromooo ) if it is OK to share the document with you specifically.

I don't agree on (2)

Rucknium: thank you, I would appreciate that for context if they allow

nice Rucknium[m]; taking a cursory glance at your proposal. happy to see it regardless.

i don't understand how we can implement things in a FOSS and also keep them secret. are u hoping to keep the rationale for selecting paramters secret?

someone will just reverse what you've done it will be public anyway, not a problem

i can see why it should be kept hushy hushy, but i also agree there should be some peer-review within some trusted parties in the community, my two cents.

How long-range would that be, by the way? Would things from this carry over to Seraphis nicely? Or is there urgent if still-secret need for rapid action?

gingeropolous: Basically, yes, at this point. later we could release. However, once it is released, we cannot un-release it. So I am erring on the side of caution.

wfaressuissia[m]: No, that is not how statistics work

rbrunner: OSPEAD is unrelated to any of Monero's cryptography. It is pretty modular. It can even be compatible with the ring binning idea, according to UkoeHB

Since it just produces a new probability distribution function

Nice to hear

rbrunner: But in general, OSPEAD may be obsolete within a year as I work on a nonparametric approach. Nonparametrics is much harder, though, so it will take time.

But it's worth it to have many months of the OSPEAD-derived mixin (or decoy) selection algorithm

And a jump up in complexity, I guess.

Yes, nonparametrics will increase the complexity in terms of the research as well as the implementation in the code. OSPEAD does not increase the implementation complexity.

and the OSPEAD-derived decoy will even be effective in the current ringsize?

Rucknium: if a Chain Analysis firm has simultaneously understood the same vulnerability as you have - how "at risk" is privacy on the network currently?

gingeropolous: Yes. How much exactly, I am not sure yet. But my intuition, as I state in my CCS, is a reduction in attack vulnerability from OSPEAD of 70-90%

nice...

john_r365: There are diverse view on that, even among people who have seen my attack. Let me get the link from the #monero-dev:monero.social logs....

<jberman> 1. Integer truncation in the wallet (e.g.: `3 / 2 = 1`) <--- This could cause problems with the minimum fee. We need to round up rather than down so 3/2 = 2 not 1

Ok everyone, we are nigh on the 1800 mark for today's meeting. Since there continues to be a lot to discuss, let's schedule another meeting next week at the same time (1700 UTC Wednesday).

Starts here, roughly:

Rucknium: will read, thank you :)

Has someone who has read the document submitted to the VRP commented on its severity?

ArticMine: the rounding isn't related to fees

It's only in a line related to decoy selection algo

ah ok

tobtoht: Yes, see the log I just posted. moneromooo commented as well at isthmus

Let's end the meeting here (for logging purposes). Thanks all for attending.

* as well as

Rucknium[m]: Ty, skimmed it.

great meeting all. thanks!

Quoting from the log: isthmus has said to me privately, after reviewing my submission, that it is "a fundamental breakthrough in analyzing Monero-style ledgers" that is "potentially catastrophic" and "might be honest-to-god RIP for Monero at current ring size and composition".

You'll see that moneromooo has a different view, however

thanks all

thank you all for the interesting insights!

carrington[m]: can you make an agenda for next week same time?

Rucknium - who in the MRL has the statistical background to understand the vulnerability? You mentioned Isthmus. Sarang also? Who else? I'm just wondering if everyone who is capable has reviewed the document, and then going forward, who will be able to review your work?

wen snarks

endogenic: A Zcash-style privacy model (with no transparent addresses) would mostly eliminate Monero's statistical attack surface, yes

john_r365: My CCS proposal discusses a scientific review panel that I am starting to pull together.

There is an applied statistician in the Monero community, broadly defined, that is currently reviewing the VRP submission.

Rucknium[m]: sarang was interested in halo 2 on orchard

binaryFate: re manager position

that funding should and assurance should go to surae or sarang

sad we didnt do this earlier

may be too late

endogenic: I think it is too late, for now. I don't see either of them coming back "into the fold" fully in the forseeable future.

how could you know that

do you have a relationship with them and are you offering them any solutions to their concerns?

i dont see that from the monero community

to be honest i think i know them pretty well

and i know them both personally

i have also been sponsoring and organizing MRL workshops for years

despite rumors to the contrary

i have lots of records, receipts, evidence etc

Perhaps you could make direct queries as to what could make them come back.

i have started question people's motives when groundless claims continue to fly around that only serve to agitate the situation for the researchers

i seriously wonder exactly what the community wants

Groundless? I've read the MRL logs and the Reddit posts.

Rucknium[m]: i know the answer to those queries to a degree already

yes groundless otherwise you would have given a reply of substance

Are you a researcher?

Are you living inside the mind of a researcher? Maybe I have insight

excuse my directness but it's strange to see people telling untruths

Rucknium[m]: yes. do you know my background and studies and work ?

afk

endogenic: No I don't. So you may understand how badly burnout can hit

it's not burnout

you are now suspicious to me

Sarang specifically cited burnout. Was he not being straightforward?

In the MRL logs

"I'm not totally sure what my plans are yet; but I think it's best to step away due to burnout"

endogenic: This almost makes me laugh. I am doing important work on a longstanding Monero vulnerability. We cannot wait around for Monero heroes to come back. We need to press forward and plan.

Researchers cycle in and out of positions. That's common. The only position they don't cycle out of is tenured professor, which we clearly don't offer.

Anyway, as I stated here

>Over the last two years, Monero's already-limited quantity of high-quality talent has dwindled. We can debate forever why this has occurred, but in any case relying on a tiny number of star researchers makes Monero unacceptably fragile. This must change.

Rucknium - to your point about heroes and waiting around. This (your discussion with endogenic) was in respect to a hypothetical manager position. I don't think this topic delays your CCS proposal / work.

Unless you specifically want to manage the MRL?

Right, nothing delays my work. It's somewhat permissionless, anyway. I'm just worried that others are waiting for something to happen

john_r365: I am not a good fit for that for these reasons:

1) I am super new to actively working on Monero. Just here for a few months.

2) I do not understand cryptography at a technical level

3) Others may perceive me to be "disloyal" to Monero since I also work on BCH.

RE: I'm just worried that others are waiting for something to happen > I think endogenic was just suggesting to binaryfate to reach out and discuss with Surang or Surae if they're interested in a manager position. I don't think that's waiting around per se - if anything that's pro-active. If they're not interested, then there may be other options.

Rucknium[m]: contributing research doesnt excuse making claims about what is and isnt possible

and it also doesnt mean you arent engaging in something that could divert us from pursing ways to bring the other researchers back

endogenic: Ok, it is a "hypothesis", then. Not a claim. I gave it a tentative framing: "I don't see...."

the fallacious rhetoric is what concerns me here

so we must be careful with our words

sarang may say burnout

Yet again, endogenic, what is the actual recommendation or request here?

but the environment burns out a person who is capable of good work

You only seem to pop up when you see an opportunity to shame others and give no concrete actionable steps.

hush seth

Do you have a point to all of this rambling?

And if so, how is it applicable to the MRL channel?

you are disrupting a productive conversation

If you want to ramble about "what-ifs", #monero-research-lounge:monero.social is a better (but still poor) place.

Please take it there.

and go back and read the channel before you say i didnt suggest anything

no seth you can go there

you are taking this personally for some reason

I would question whether it is a productive conversation, and I am one of the two participants in the conversation.

I have read the entire backscroll since you joined late.

i wonder why

read it again then. we should take responsibility for burning them out

You shitposted and then attacked Rucknium for a serious response.

if we cannot we will never get them bacm

back

seth that is your opinion

and your emotion

endogenic: No, I don't like seeing you run over active contributors for no reason in channels I mod :)

endogenic: Then do something about it.

i am an active contributor being run over by you seth

mr projection lol

bbl

Take the off-topic rambling to MRLounge please.

bruh what tf is going on here

endogenic: typical

Gets push back and bails

endogenic: I mean, yeah I think the Monero community does bear some responsibility for burning them out. But my opinion is not strongly based on years of observation like others may have.

Always a fun time :)

hxr404: Just one of our resident trolls, nothing important.

I think this discussion is better for #monero-community, pls move the next msgs there

Just an observation: It seems I am a target of multiple trolls. That may suggest something.

anyone who actually does work is the target of trolls. make sure you're doing what you can to stay sane since they can be severely distracting at times

I think it may take a bit of my time away from other tasks, but it is more entertaining at this point than anything. I literally lol'ed at some things that were said.

Better than Netflix

My discipline is known to be fairly toxic, anyway, so I am accustomed to much, much worse. And with that, I will stop messaging here about it.

yup thanks, this channel is aggressively research-only :)

plenty of other channels to discuss personal issues, and plenty of supportive people who can help talk through any issues. I know they suck at times

it's foolish and uninformed to mistake me for a troll

<endogenic> "it's foolish and uninformed to..." <- Again, #monero-community:monero.social, this is not the place for this. I should have directed it there immediately.

Rucknium[m]: fwiw, I think the tenured position analogue in Monero is Core.

So janitors here still on their ego trips, I see

The mastermind behind mymonero getting told off by the guy who makes guides for normies on how to use mymonero lmao

please

#monero-community:monero.social please, chamus. If you want to troll and attack me at least do it in a relevant room :)

No more warnings for your or endogenic. This room is *strictly* for MRL-related discussions.

midipoet: tenure is more of a sinecure.. heavy emphasis on it being a paid position. a closer analogy to Core would be a board of advisors imo

s/your/you/, s/*strictly*/_strictly_/

geonic: fair point

<endogenic> hush seth

I have had enough of you already. not only did you post non-public data when you had your... whatever it was with that ccs proposal, that pony had to step in and put you in your place.

pls not here <3

keep it out of this channel

to which you only had the infamous bbl stuff, nonsense. now you tell seth to hush when he calls you out on your crap? enough. ignored and blocked across the board.

i don't care what you both have to say re: that. Paul is blocked and ignored. I don't need to put up with him, neither here, nor anywhere else.

I am done.

</end>

regarding sarang & surae ISTR the biggest complaints can only be solved with a formal company. i.e., they needed proof of employment, to pass credit checks, get insurance, etc.

and regardless of the salary they were earning from CCS, they had no formal proof of employment

I believe if someone were to go ahead and form a non-profit org to be an umbrella for MRL workers, that would solve that problem to everyone's satisfaction

Seth For Privacy I've created posts for the next MRL meeting.

I have only just finished reading the scroll back of the meeting. It isn't clear to me if people wanted to make changes to the agenda, so for now I have kept it the same as before. Open to suggestions for additions, removals or rearrangements for the agenda.

These topics all seem to be ongoing points of discussion

nice agenda. thanks carrington[m].

hyc it seems to me that formal structures within Monero governance makes Monero more technocratic. One of the big reasons Monero stands out compared to CryptoNote and its other forks is the unusual lack of willingness to ‘own’ Monero development or research (which is abstractly distinct from ‘owning’ pieces of code or ideas). There is no Mr. Monero (as much as its detractors like to view fluffypony in that

role), nor are developers/researchers in The Monero Team (despite there being Core - who behave more as custodians than as co-owners). It’s more like Monero is made up of contributors and custodians, rather than builders and directors. I feel that these intangible distinctions are essential to the long-term success of any simple cryptocurrency like Monero (even if organization has a different feeling in more

‘product’-like projects such as Ethereum) or Bitcoin (the other prominent example of this haphazardness that I am aware of).

Organization is still valuable though - as supporting elements to the project. For example, we hire auditing groups to perform tasks. There are various volunteers and companies contributing code either to core or to projects in the ecosystem. Research groups are pumping out papers constantly (as Rucknium recently found re:Moser citations).

This is a big reason I think the vitriol aimed at CypherStack is misplaced. They are doing what needs to be done for a healthy ecosystem.