<c​haser:monero.social> ArticMine: my understanding is that this feature has been desired for view-only wallets, and the current design doesn't allow it, however it's viable both in the FCMP+RingCT design and in Seraphis, but not a result of FCMPs per se. the monero.town poster worries that regulation may force users to give up this key, which will allow regulators too to surveil outgoing transactions. i<clipped message>

<c​haser:monero.social> s my understanding correct?

<a​rticmine:monero.social> If you mean outgoing transactions from regulated entities this is nothing more than travel rule. The regulated entity knows to whom they are sending the funds. One actually does not need a view key for this.

<a​rticmine:monero.social> The issue is subsequent hops. If the user has given the view key of the first hop address to a VASP the user can simply transfer part of the funds to a spending wallet and spend privately from the spending wallet.

<a​rticmine:monero.social> An aggressive regulator may try to get the view key to the spending wallet, but this opens the door further to legal pushback in the courts. This is especially the case in Europe not just the EU where BS is already under threat because of the European Convention of Human Rights.

<a​rticmine:monero.social> By the way OVK does not need a hard fork after or Seraphis FCMP. It can be implemented at the wallet level. So in practice it is a result of FCMP.

<a​rticmine:monero.social> This discussion is in my view better suited to Monero Policy

<a​rticmine:monero.social> To clarify. OVK does not need another hard fork once pre Seraphis FCMP is implemented

<j​ohn_r365:monero.social> Diego Salazar: This line in the CCS proposal, it's worded in a confusing way. Maybe it can be edited?

<j​ohn_r365:monero.social> "We aim to complete the review within 1.5 calendar (actual hours are not 1.5 months of man hours, but we have other work for other clients as well) months of the proposal being funded."

<j​ohn_r365:monero.social> Specifically the part: "actual hours are not 1.5 months of man hours"

Assumption is do not expect it to be done (date of funded += 1.5 months) because we have other on going projects and cant full time on this task

<j​ohn_r365:monero.social> Maybe something like the below would be clearer:

<j​ohn_r365:monero.social> "Taking into account our existing project load, we aim to complete the review within 1.5 calendar months of the proposal being funded."

<j​ohn_r365:monero.social> Anyway, just my two cents, and maybe others find the wording clear as is.

Generalized Bulletproofs Security Proofs is now fully funded! ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/cypherstack-gbp-security-proofs.html

Rucknium Statistical Research is now fully funded! ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/Rucknium-Statistical-Research.html