<ooo123ooo1234567> "github.com/monero-..." <- Yes. When we're discussing user facing warnings, it's a game of words.

<ooo123ooo1234567> ""Until @8149 is merged, this..." <- There's no experiment without 8149. It's 8149 which is the experiment (until we have sufficient review/work on it),

<kayabanerve[m]> "Yes. When we're discussing..." <- wow

Gotta agree with kayabanerve here: the point of adding the CLI flag was to signal to the user: DON'T USE THIS YET UNLESS YOU WANT YOUR FUNDS STOLEN, so that's what kayabaNerve 's change does. Yes, it's a game of words, like all UX features.

<kayabanerve[m]> "There's no experiment without 81..." <- blind merges - no experiment, audit on resubmit of pr - experiment; facepalm

I made that comment to say sure, it is, but that doesn't mean anything.

ooo123ooo1234567: 8149 wasn't merged due to still needing review and a few edits.

jeffro256[m]: it would be better to read before reviewing PRs, instead of discussing game of words in warnings

It's not being blindly merged.

> <@jeffro256:monero.social> Gotta agree with kayabanerve here: the point of adding the CLI flag was to signal to the user: DON'T USE THIS YET UNLESS YOU WANT YOUR FUNDS STOLEN, so that's what kayabaNerve 's change does. Yes, it's a game of words, like all UX features.

* it would be better to start code reading before reviewing PRs, instead of discussing game of words in warnings

I did submit a review for 8149 .-.

> it would be better to start code reading before reviewing PRs, instead of discussing game of words in warnings

It's also undeniable the current multisig is unsafe .-.

One is significanly easier to do than the other, and can be merged today

kayabanerve[m]: wow, what's the source of such undeniable fact ?

ooo123ooo1234567: ... do you want me to link Drijver's paper?

> wow, what's the source of such undeniable fact ?

lol

Or cite the issue I found within Monero multisig only 8149 fixes?

Or cite koe?

Are you suggesting the current multisig isn't unsafe?

You may be the most incompetent developer here if so.

<kayabanerve[m]> "You may be the most incompetent..." <- discussing the most unimportant code in a test without reading it, parroting info found by others - competent, asking what's the source of problem fixed in resubmit of my pr - incompetent; facepalm

I don't know what resubmission you're referring to yet I'm literally not discussing any of your PRs right now. I'm discussing Monero's master which has had no changes to its signing process.

Your PR on the matter would fix one issue, and leave at least one other. koe's fixes all issues I know of, and may not handle ones I don't.

kayabanerve[m]: the burning bug was punted to a follow-up PR due to scope creep

burning issue*

<kayabanerve[m]> "Your PR on the matter would..." <- indeed, sufficiently competent reply for MAGIC fund board member

UkoeHB: ... am I blind or did I pull up an old commit then? Or because I've read your exact code in the past with the hash construction, did I just mentally fill it in?

Regardless, that's problematic af for me. I'll try to review what happened in a few.

Also, I must say bickering with perfect-daemon is a waste of time and energy lol (not to mention basically spam).

kayabanerve[m]: wow, discussing PR without reading it's content

ooo123ooo1234567: I really don't care for your ad hominem attacks.

UkoeHB: True lol

I'll check my browser history in a few and see where I slipped. Not really acceptable on my end, so will work it out.

UkoeHB: indeed, wasting time and energy with professional auditors is much better

kayabanerve[m]: If you would read code / content of PRs then it would be possible to discuss it, otherwise you don't follow the context

I think I saw tx_secret_key and wrote it off, as an isolate expanded into the set of keys, forgetting that wallet2 separates into tx_secret and aux/additional .-. I'll update my comments.

> <@kayabanerve:matrix.org> I really don't care for your ad hominem attacks.

* If you would read code / content of PRs then it would be possible to discuss it, otherwise it's impossible without shared context

<UkoeHB> "Also, I must say bickering..." <- indeed, unimportant changes on top of resubmitted pr - not spam / not waste of time and energy

<UkoeHB> "Also, I must say bickering..." <- indeed, discussion about review process of PRs before merges is unimportant and waste of time and energy

<kayabanerve[m]> "I really don't care for your..." <- is there any reason why it's acceptable to discuss code/PRs without reading them ?

please stop with the endless quoting / replies. it's making the channel undreadable.

ooo123ooo1234567: it's sufficient to just tag the person you're replying to

we can all scroll back if needed, to see the context.

github.com/matrix-org/matrix-appser…lop/src/bridge/MatrixHandler.ts#L58, it's automatic decision of matrix-irc bridge whether to use just name or name + prefix

from matrix side it's always reply to msg