00:42:22 @boog900: It is not that simple. For example if the amounts going through the turnstile are exposed, are people comfortable sending large amounts across the turnstile or will they spit up the amounts beforehand, and consolidate at the other side? 00:42:56 What is the greatest amount a person is prepared to expose? 00:43:23 How does this relate to cash or AML limits 00:45:42 I think you misunderstood my comment, I meant why care about any of this now when adding a turnstile is a change to consensus so we can just adjust the scaling code at the same time we add the turnstile 00:46:27 we have no idea what a turnstile will look like, the size of txs going through the turnstile, the size of txs on the other side etc. This is not something we can plan for now 00:47:19 @boog900: For starters would we be legally allowed to may the change then? 00:47:19 Will the nodes be ready ahead of time? 00:48:12 if we can't legally change the code we can't legally add a turnstile as both are a change to consensus 00:48:36 Not necessarily. 00:48:51 > Will the nodes be ready ahead of time? 00:48:51 They have to be there is zero code for a PQ turnstile currently 00:49:15 when we add that code we can change the scaling code 00:49:50 A turnstile would be considered a necessary security measure. 00:49:50 This is very different from splitting transactions to defeat blockchain surveillance. 00:51:01 So we may not be able to add the additional scaling code in the future 00:51:30 ok that situation is so stupid 00:52:20 Take a look at the legislation being proposed. There is a lot of grandparenting allowed. 00:52:20 Governments can be very stupid 00:52:45 were the ElGamal commitments baked into carrot? 00:53:54 you can't just make random hypotheticals like that. I can do the same, what if a turnstile tx is 100x smaller than a FCMP tx, this would provide the increase in capacity because each tx would be smaller. 00:54:12 @articmine: In a situation where a government isnt "allowing" development of monero, then im also not relying on grandfather laws 00:54:35 what if governments decide themselves to reduce the size of monero blocks by law 00:55:10 @boog900: Much harder to get through the courts 00:55:23 and what if it does get through the courts 00:55:32 new law: blocks may not exceed the penalty free zone 00:56:24 My point is that the onus will most likely be on those who are proposing the changes 00:56:35 Must be throttled to 50 transactions per minute, and must be transparent 00:56:58 otherwise your aiding money laundering 00:57:17 Monero-project labelled a terrorist financing org and sanctioned 00:57:18 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: ... . but existing code is grandfathered 00:57:45 According to? 00:57:57 The state 00:58:03 which state? 00:58:22 This kind of thing is already in legislation 00:58:34 The EU 00:58:46 nobody (me) cares what the eu says 00:59:04 except for turnstiles, which are ok to add? > <@articmine> ... . but existing code is grandfathered 00:59:09 Not my circus, not my monkeys 00:59:18 Have you attended MoneroKon? 00:59:30 No 00:59:47 I have and have spoken ther 00:59:52 There 01:00:31 So hat many other people here 01:00:35 Have 01:00:44 we aren't basing our scaling code on hypotheticals this crazy 01:01:08 and eu atill hates monero.. i dont see what monerkon has to do with this discussion 01:01:21 so many assumptions about the future 01:02:10 anyway, the logical thing here ia that, obv, a hypothetical turnstile doesnt yet exist_ and is therefore not a part of whatever is being grandfathered 01:02:34 Please read the legislation 01:02:47 What is being proposed 01:02:55 eu legislation? Why would i do that 01:03:04 Not my circus, not my monkeys 01:03:54 And even if i lived in a country in europe, is rather ask my country to be sane and stop following the laws of some entity that we dont vote for 01:04:00 @articmine: show me where it says we can add a turnstile but can't change scaling 01:05:35 also show me the size of a turnstile tx, how many txs we expect to go through, the time frame we allow this for, the size of PQ txs on the other side ... 01:06:47 I don't see why japan can ban privacy coins, but the eu cant 01:07:30 Is there legistlation that says that privacy coins created before N date are exempt from future regulations? 01:25:42 Only thing I did read about the EU scam is that they are going to ban the custodials to have them (that would include payment processor, other than self hosted one, afaik). 01:25:42 2027 01:49:45 Here is a good example "A safe harbour is provided for digital assets issued prior to the CLARITY Act’s enactment, enabling continued operation if issuers meet specified disclosure and conduct requirements." 01:50:04 https://mcmillan.ca/insights/publications/overview-and-analysis-of-the-clarity-act/ 01:51:01 So yea this may be the last time we can make changes without having to go through regulatory hoops. 01:53:07 We must be very careful with any consensus change that could possibly favor blockchain surveillance, including but not limited to throttling scaling 01:57:00 The US is one country that has not banned Monero 01:57:14 From exchay 01:57:19 Exchanges 01:58:33 As for a turnstile that would easily be seen as a necessary change due to changing security circumstances 02:00:38 This is not hypothetical. It is legislation before the US Congress > <@boog900> we aren't basing our scaling code on hypotheticals this crazy 02:01:29 ArticMine: since when has the codebase ever catered to regulations? 02:03:11 eu based devs may be discouraged from making changes, but that doesnt apply to the rotw 02:03:31 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I am not supporting change to the codebase that favor government sponsored surveillance 02:03:36 I fail to see how it makes any sense that in the real world we can upgrade our whole protocol except for the scaling code. 02:04:14 We could have a similar problem if we waited for FCMP++ 02:04:28 It is not just scaling 02:04:40 and you don't think we will have the same problem when we go PQ? 02:04:58 We can argue security 02:05:09 That is the critical difference 02:05:36 this problem seems fully dependent on consensus that we should neuter monero in order to comply with some alphabet gang 02:05:49 In which case monero may as well be dead 02:06:34 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: No the problem is that we must not neuter Monero in order to avoid having to deal with this gang in the future 02:06:44 Whether its some change to cripple scaling or to ossify the codebasebas a result of grandfather-only laws, is ridiculous 02:07:50 trying to plan for every future will lead to the only possible conclusion being infinite block sizes with 0 scaling. 02:08:05 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: I have said before I am fine with the current scaling . I am very opposed to adding future scaling restrictions 02:08:06 whatever regulations of past, present, or future say, monero as a codebase will keep honest with its stated goals. If it doesnt, its not monero anymore 02:08:46 @articmine: why? what if a PQ turnstile requires txs at 15 kbs? 02:09:11 @ofrnxmr:xmr.mx: Do you agree that we must make government surveillance as hard as possible yes or no? 02:10:36 @boog900: Vs 9 today? 02:11:08 150 then the number was pulled out of thin air 02:11:17 Sure. I also believe that the changes can be made at any time, regardless of what some legislator wants, or what is considered grandfathered 02:11:30 I am choosing numbers that fit my argument 02:12:58 We would have a much stronger case if we do not increase the minimum penalty free zone by the same ratio as the tx size 02:13:19 I believe relying on future users to magically show up is stupid, we need to make the best system possible now, and that includes making the system resilient to attacks. 02:13:22 Regardless of 15 kB or 150 kb 02:13:51 My point is to not give a regulator ammunition 02:14:37 What I am saying is that the regulatory landscape is changing fast 02:14:59 Ok, so we need to account of turnstiles 02:15:02 So we must lock in now the strongest privacy 02:15:04 how big are the txs? 02:15:08 @articmine: why? 02:15:19 @articmine: exactly infinite block size 02:15:23 Why "lock in" 02:15:49 sounds like calls to ossify btc codebase 02:16:21 It is the exact opposite 02:16:30 Please 02:16:49 Its not. If the idea is that regulators will force us to not make changes, then thay is ossification via regulation 02:17:17 @boog900: An adaptive blocksize is by definition infinite 02:17:37 we have a 100mb packet size limit 02:17:42 That has been the social covenant of Monero since it's inception 02:17:43 @articmine: I mean no scaling 02:18:41 otherwise we can argue a block size of 1 byte growing 1 byte every 100 years fits your requirements 02:19:12 you want scaling to take into account a turnstile, of which we have 0 details of 02:19:29 how does one even start to do that 02:21:29 We know what the number of inputs into the turnstile will like be, and also the likely size of those inputs 02:21:42 no we don't 02:22:04 we don't know the number of outputs on the chain at the start of the turnstile 02:22:15 and that's only 1 part 02:22:23 size of the tx is the main one 02:23:19 @gingeropolous: @gingeropolous:monero.social: el gamal commitments aren't baked into carrot, but an almost-as-strong quantum-resistant opening scheme is baked into Carrot amount commitments . it does require revealing the amount in a turnstile tho 02:24:10 @boog900: The unknown is the output tx size etc. 02:24:22 Well its equally as strong as a switch commitment , but weaker than a pure el gamal commitment 02:25:00 @articmine: ok lets say that is the unknown and you know the rest of the turnstile protocol now, that is still an unknown 02:25:01 But even there we already have indications of proof sizes 02:25:34 you want us to guess? 02:26:07 Better than burying ones head in the sand 02:26:51 so you would rather our heads be in the clouds, got it 02:27:09 The issue we can work on ahead of time is transaction rates, and current transaction size 02:27:56 This is not guessing 02:28:10 NO 02:28:19 we are talking about a turnstile 02:28:38 you wanted to guess the size of turnstile txs > <@articmine> But even there we already have indications of proof sizes 02:29:35 This is an excellent start > <@kayabanerve:matrix.org> The sooner we prepare today, the less of a rush we'll be in tomorrow 02:29:35 even then we cannot predict tx rates in the future 02:30:23 we can estimate based off of the past but we have no clue what good/bad thing will happen that could cause a huge increase/decrease in tx rates 02:30:57 @articmine: so you want us to wait for a PQ protocol before FCMP? 02:31:09 What I do not support is stepping backwards in this 02:31:14 before changing scaling* 02:31:35 @boog900: No 02:31:57 Maybe we move to something like a shielded CSV type protocol in the future so transaction sizes matter much less to L1 validators, regardless of crypto proofs used 02:32:44 That would take longer than FCMP++ tho IMO , so that regulation would maybe already be in effect 02:33:23 @jeffro256: nah but what if there was a law that made that proof illegal! 02:33:40 My position is go ahead with FCMP++ and maximize rather than throttle scaling 02:36:25 One pro for the big block argument that I haven't seen yet in this chat is that the block size can always be limited with a future soft fork, whereas increasing requires a hard fork 02:36:29 We need to stop this negativity that the growth of the peer to peer on chain Monero network is some kind of a bad thing 02:37:01 @jeffro256: Now here is a sensible approach 02:38:42 @jeffro256: absolutely, my main argument is not for restricting growth in the long term but mainly short term. Like this is cool but currently blocks can grow way faster than we can put a softfork out to prevent damage 02:39:07 and once a softfork is done, undoing it is a HF 02:39:22 @boog900: Which is why I made my proposal 02:39:48 Shift the growth to the long term. 02:39:52 A soft fork still might take weeks/months to get IRL consensus on , and more weeks/months to activate. In the meantime , node usability could be suffering dramatically 02:41:00 @articmine: yeah and thats cool, but you don't have to make out any modification is going to kill scaling. 02:41:17 @jeffro256: So we need to be looking at a 2 to 4 month period 02:41:43 Probably longer realistically 02:41:53 How much longer 02:41:54 Qubic spam lasted for months 02:43:08 I wouldn't go lower than current 100K blocktime median 02:44:41 I am not proposing making the long term median shorter 02:49:20 What I proposed is lowering the growth of the blocks from 100x to 16x during the 100000 block long term median., and increasing the rate of growth of t long term median from 1.7x to 2x 02:50:51 The fastest the long term median can move is 69 days 02:55:29 Over 138 days we go down from 170x to 32x. 02:55:29 The small blockers won't even accept that 02:55:59 So we had an impass 02:57:38 Have 02:58:22 lets be clear, today started as you stated you wanted to account for a future turnstile in the scaling 02:58:34 I want our scaling numbers to be real not pulled out of thin air 02:59:17 I have provided real historical data for both Monero and Litecoin 02:59:33 On numerous occasions 03:00:05 so you now agree that accounting for a future turnstile is not a good idea? 03:02:28 We cannot predict a future turnstile in all its details, but we know that it will place significant demands on scaling. 03:02:28 This means that the there is not a cast to reduce scaling 03:02:38 Case 03:04:09 bummer. would an el gamal have required revealing the amount? i'm trying to find the conversation about this. Why was it decided to not go this route? > <@jeffro256> Well its equally as strong as a switch commitment , but weaker than a pure el gamal commitment 03:04:24 we don't know that tbf, turnstile txs could be significantly smaller and we almost certainly are going to be able to adjust the scaling at the time if it it is required 03:05:22 @boog900: Then that would be a case to reduce the minimum penalty free zone 03:06:20 ... but this has nothing to do with t rate of growth of the long term and short term median s 03:06:23 Ok so we do both, make scaling more aggressive and make scaling more aggressive to account for this? 03:07:01 @gingeropolous: It wasn't chosen since el gamal commitments reveal would've revealed all historical amounts to quantum computers, regardless of a turnstile or any interaction 03:07:08 And their proofs are more expensive 03:07:17 @articmine: the point is we don't know if the txs will be bigger or smaller 03:07:23 I am proposing less aggressive over the short to medium term 03:08:06 @boog900: Which really should only affect the minimum penalty free zone 03:08:29 so like, if a quantum computer broke el gamal it would reveal everything? 03:08:31 @articmine: but a more aggressive penalty free zone and a more aggressive long term, which is +2 months? 03:08:49 @gingeropolous: yeah basically 03:09:02 @articmine: why if the txs are bigger we need to account for them in the limits? 03:09:26 how do you even know how much we are accounting for? 03:09:35 It would be information theoretically safe against counterfeiting, but the amounts would be revealed w/o interaction 03:09:38 The more aggressive penalty free zone is based upon the 4x larger tx size 03:10:00 gotcha. and whatever thing we turnstile to will be more better than el gamal at doing this i guess 03:10:18 This is a separate issue from the median growth rat 03:11:23 but it would have revealed amounts, but kept the supply secure. 03:11:30 Now if people want to lower the penalty free zone it really only means higher short term fees 03:11:51 and instead we're opting for a turnstile where we have to reveal amounts.... ? 03:12:50 @articmine: It does factor into the maximum size you can spam from 0. 03:12:57 A turnstile with switch commitments would only reveal the amounts migrated across the turnstile, and not all historical amounts for all transactions. And since enotes aren't necessarily tied to any individual, a whale who knew the turnstile was coming could split their amounts into 100 coins and slowly pull them across the tur [... too long, see https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/pd-WvcwKTDFWOTI2 ] 03:13:26 ah. danke 03:13:39 sorry i missed this convo 1 year ago :/ 03:13:45 or forgot it 03:15:11 Right now, on stressnet, it takes like 24hrs on lvl 3 fees to hit 14mb blocks 03:15:11 http://stressgguj7ugyxtqe7czeoelobeb3cnyhltooueuae2t3avd5ynepid.onion/block/2883200 = empty blocks 03:15:11 http://stressgguj7ugyxtqe7czeoelobeb3cnyhltooueuae2t3avd5ynepid.onion/block/2883900 = 14mb 03:15:15 but it still has the race thing. like, everybody has to go through the turnstile. that wallet seed that I may or may not have buried in behind the old oak down the fence needs to be processed within n years ....? 03:15:26 lol np. it's easy to get lost in the weeds about potential future designs of systems we don't exactly know how to make yet 03:15:37