Overview and Logs for the Dev Meeting Held on 2016-08-28, Monero – secure, private, untraceable

Posted by: dEBRUYNE / fluffypony


<,meeting-bot>, [fluffypony] hello from the other side!

<,fluffypony>, ArticMine / luigi1111w / othe / sleek / hyc / moneromooo / tewinget / redfish / NoodleDoodle / anyoen I left behind

<,moneromooo>, There’s an article about fraud ter crypto on the bytecoin blog. Chutzpah, got to admit.

<,fluffypony>, welcome to the annual “Devs who Drink whilst Developing” meeting

<,fluffypony>, moneromooo: plucky of them

<,fluffypony>, nothing happened with the Monero price

<,fluffypony>, and so wij concentrate on dev

<,fluffypony>, let’s begin with a quick check of open PRs

<,fluffypony>, except for RingCT which wij’ll get to

<,fluffypony>, redfish: how goes the CMake stuff?

<,fluffypony>, and a warm welcome to our special guest, NoodleDoodle

<,fluffypony>, whilst wij wait for the redfishes

<,fluffypony>, NoodleDoodle: do you want to talk about Trezor at all?

<,hyc>, redfish doesn’t show up to be answering either

<,NoodleDoodle>, I’m about 1296 behind te commits. Rebasing is pretty much out of the question. Have to by hand merge then release.

<,fluffypony>, NoodleDoodle: do you want any help with that?

<,NoodleDoodle>, The trezor firmware itself should be lighter, except it’s split into Five or 6 repos

<,NoodleDoodle>, I should be able to do it.

<,fluffypony>, NoodleDoodle: do you want us to host it on the monero-project Github te its own repo, obvs providing you collab access, to make it more “formal” and part of the core project?

<,NoodleDoodle>, Sure, anything. I actually commenced on keepkey awhile back spil well, albeit it’s not spil accomplish spil trezor.

<,fluffypony>, I’ve bot fiddling with Ledger Blue, spil I have the Blue and the Nano S

<,fluffypony>, I have a feeling they’ll be a cinch after Trezor / Keepkey

<,fluffypony>, and, hopefully, wij can PR it te to be part of the default firmware on thesis devices

<,fluffypony>, hyc has a puny PR to ease up our LMDB speed after you’re caught up with the network

<,fluffypony>, which should lead to an even more sturdy blockchain DB, not that I’ve had anything resembling a corruption ter ages

<,fluffypony>, and I kill daemons like I’m playing Doom

<,fluffypony>, tewinget, would you like to update us on 0MQ plx?

<,tewinget>, so far, all of the daemon RPC calls pertaining to the wallet are good to go, spil well spil several others

<,tewinget>, the wallet is good to go for using the fresh daemon rpc library

<,tewinget>, oh, the fresh daemon rpc has a library, rather than just calling out to networking things directly. >,**_>,**

1 hr sleep, minor rambling will toebijten)

<,fluffypony>, tewinget: do you think it’s PR-able now, and then subsequent updates to go after, or is it still too fast-and-loose to be used te “production”?

<,tewinget>, let’s see…next things I need to do are basically grind: make guideline line flags / parametrize port truss options, and so on. Documentation (both code and RPC spec)

<,tewinget>, well, spil of right now because of how cryptocurrencies work, if it fuck-sticks up it’ll just…fail? Spil ter, not ter a ruinous, send all coins to the void way, but te a boring “the tx failed to go to the daemon” or w/e way

<,tewinget>, that said, I should most likely waterput a bit more time into grind with instruction line flags and such very first, spil it presently has hard-coded trussing and so on, and I need to doc the API

<,fluffypony>, ok because that brings us on to the next topic

<,hyc>, the PR I’ve submitted actually only switches the default db mode at startup. wij didn’t fairly figure out how to adjust it after sync finished

<,tewinget>, afaik (spil ter, if I’ve done it right) it’s JSON-RPC compliant spil well, speciaal from the http layer

<,fluffypony>, and tewinget maybe you can think about it ter this setting

<,fluffypony>, the RingCT PR is now post-review, at least by mij, with numerous others having reviewed parts of it

<,fluffypony>, wij toevluchthaven’t set fork heights yet

<,moneromooo>, Wait till I signed commits very first.

<,fluffypony>, but basically the idea is to run through the testnet forks next week

<,fluffypony>, which means testnet will do the omschrijving of September and March 2017 forks

<,fluffypony>, testnet will then have RingCT live

<,fluffypony>, and wij’ll be able to concentrate on efficiency improvements, further testing, and so on

<,fluffypony>, te the meantime, it will let us code freeze sometime into September

<,fluffypony>, a little zometeen than wij’d have liked, but a necessity to get RingCT ter to this freeze instead of only ter March

<,fluffypony>, now here’s the nice thing

<,fluffypony>, old daemons only know about the fork te September, and will only begin nagging about that one

<,fluffypony>, so wij can set the subsequent fork to something earlier than March

<,fluffypony>, but wij’d have to make that decision by the next dev meeting pretty much at the latest

<,fluffypony>, next week Tue / Wed or so wij’ll thrust out binaries for 0.10-beta

<,fluffypony>, 0.Ten will be called Wolfram Warptangent, te honour of the Monero contributor that passed away

<,tewinget>, well the 6-month window is a “no earlier than”, but at the same time since it’s basically just miners doing the voting, idk how doing it earlier pans out.

<,ArticMine>, Does that include the GUI?

<,fluffypony>, ArticMine: no, this is core only

<,tewinget>, ArticMine: Wij can tag a release with GUI at any time, no forking and such

<,fluffypony>, but it includes the GUI lib switches that are needed

<,fluffypony>, so anyone compiling the GUI will have working beta bins to play with

<,fluffypony>, so I’d please like commitments from spil many people spil possible to participate te testnet next week

* moneromooo commits fluffypony

* tewinget rejects the unsigned commit

* iDunk sees travis ci build fail

<,fluffypony>, git commit -S -am “loony bin”

<,moneromooo>, OK. I’ll waterput te a Pedersen commitment to… something.

<,moneromooo>, When do wij set the forks then ?

<,moneromooo>, For v3, ok. v4 (rct) on monday lunchtime.

<,moneromooo>, And v5 (rct only) on tuesday.

<,fluffypony>, you mean Monday tomorrow, or Monday next week?

<,fluffypony>, yes actually good idea – the actual fork process has bot tested on private testnet, and te the previous fork

<,fluffypony>, so wij thrust bins out after the fork

<,fluffypony>, then people can play without needing to fiddle

<,gingeropolous>, and this is still a no-vote fork?

<,moneromooo>, Yes. Screw votes, they were coded by an idiot.

<,fluffypony>, gingeropolous: yeah – wij can re-address that ter the next 6-12 months, but at the uur it’s move-it-or-lose-it

<,fluffypony>, also the schedule is pretty widely known, except for ShapeShift who wij’ll email and then they’ll optie they have no skill of the update

<,tewinget>, gingeropolous: plus it’s technically never a no-vote fork, spil if the miners get pissed off and don’t want it, well, they just won’t. >,**_>,**

<,fluffypony>, ok so moneromooo, your fork points are fine

<,moneromooo>, So will you merge the PR then build off that, or build off my branch ?

<,fluffypony>, people vereiste be able to build head on their boxes if they want

<,moneromooo>, (oh, the supreme importance of punctuation)

<,fluffypony>, I think that’s it from my side

<,fluffypony>, does anyone have any questions or thoughts or anything?

<,gingeropolous>, im still not super clear on the fork schedule…. but it could be sleep dep

<,fluffypony>, for mainnet it’s still the September v3 fork, spil expected

<,fluffypony>, if wij want wij can have the v4 and v5 forks at any point after that, even however March would be the “expected” date

<,hyc>, iDunk: build loom shows no errors, just too slow to build

<,tewinget>, I have a few questions, but I’ll wait for others’ for a few minutes very first.

<,hyc>, iDunk: but it’s unluckily true 😛

<,fluffypony>, so even tho’ wij wouldn’t normally shove a fork forward, wij have to consider the influx of fresh users, and maybe wij feel that the added privacy is essential enough to do v4 end of Oct, v5 ter Dec

<,fluffypony>, so wij embark 2017 with RingCT spil the only way to transact

<,gingeropolous>, is there a place where the fork project /etc is laid out?

<,gingeropolous>, maybe the readme of the github is a good huis

<,fluffypony>, gingeropolous: this one, or generally?

<,fluffypony>, generally, the Monero Forum postbode + all other posts that talk about the mandatory hard forks

<,tewinget>, gingeropolous: plans are very likely te /usr/share/doc, not te /etc

<,fluffypony>, I agree that the Readme shoudl include it

<,hyc>, seems to mij like wij have a loterijlot of profiling and tuning to do before ringCT will play for real

<,gingeropolous>, its gonna be a helluva fall

<,fluffypony>, this one is dev meeting specific, wij’ll have a summary postbode after that and solicit terugkoppeling from the non-dev community

<,fluffypony>, hyc: wij do have fresh contributors, so wij might be able to get through the tuning stuff quicker

<,fluffypony>, I’m no fan of pushing it too hard, because it means I have to get MyMonero working with RingCT, but it’s doable

<,gingeropolous>, yeah, I know there’s the forum posts.. but considering fork early, fork often is kleuter of our thing, it should / could be … more vooraanstaand

<,gingeropolous>, ah screw it. time to by moneroforks.whatever

<,fluffypony>, gingeropolous: do you want to PR a switch to the readme?

<,fluffypony>, it’ll take you from troll-dev status to readme-dev

<,fluffypony>, before wij run out of time

<,tewinget>, so for one thing, I toevluchthaven’t seen a GUI progress update today, figured I’d ask if wij have a tentative timeline?

<,othe>, yeah so ilya is traveling but back next week, wij hope to fix all puny reamaining issues till the week after

<,othe>, and then wij can release a beta

<,othe>, together with a fresh tagged rls

<,fluffypony>, othe is there any way he can zekering submitting thick PRs

<,othe>, and then whats following is mostly advanced settings and stuff like that

<,fluffypony>, it’s killing it for other potential contributors

<,tewinget>, if there’s desire for it and nobody else takes up the task, I may sign up to do a plugin system (unless that’s already te place?)

<,fluffypony>, he needs to PR on a feature / fix by feature poot

<,othe>, oh thats not ter the place but something that would be cool to have tewinget

<,moneromooo>, And stir the twitter stuff ter there, just to be sure.

<,fluffypony>, the big thing I wished to discuss

<,fluffypony>, that’s going to toebijten before the bins are shoved

<,fluffypony>, so if anyone has any final thoughts on that, you’d best comment on the punt, else suck it up straks 😛

<,fluffypony>, I’d also like us to begin refactoring the parts that have CryptoNote ter the name to be Monero instead

<,fluffypony>, spil RingCT + several thousand commits puts us fairly far beyond the reference protocol

<,moneromooo>, Renaming things for the joy of it ? I’d rather not.

<,moneromooo>, (te the code, I mean. I’m ok with the binaries thing)

<,tewinget>, omzetbelasting fluffypony, I *think* that the zmq-dev branch is PR-ready, but I’m not comfy making that call without some testing, so if anyone would like to give it a go (testnet and mainnet are affected identically, so testnet is 100% fine for, well, testing)

<,ArticMine>, It plain reflects the reality of how much the code has switched from the original Cryptonote implementation

<,tewinget>, spil I said before, I’d like to grind it up a bit very first, but that’s not a blocking punt for PR-ing

<,fluffypony>, tewinget: if you’re of the opinion it can go into a mid-Sept code freeze / release then sure, else leave it till after the release because it’s not HF worthy

<,tewinget>, I’m reluctantly okay with doing merges on my end before a PR, so it can wait, just figured I’d give the option. Testing would still be superb though…I need to sync the testnet chain on my VPS but then I’ll badger you for some testnet moneyz

<,tewinget>, I’ll need to discuss with someone(s) how “blocknotify” should work, and perhaps about doing something similar for miners (call it templatenotify if you like)

<,fluffypony>, oh that could be interesting

<,fluffypony>, the templatenotify I mean

<,hyc>, yeah templatenotify would make an instant difference for miners

<,tewinget>, yea, I’m thinking a configurable parameter that is like “if there is 20% more value to be had via tx fees by switching the block template, notify the miner to update its block template with the fresh transactions included”

<,tewinget>, plus the visible implications of switching when a fresh block is learned about

<,tewinget>, but that can be done with the blocknotify that the wallet wants anyway

<,gingeropolous>, ooh wij talkin dynamic fees?

<,tewinget>, at any rate, that’s a vormgeving discussion for another time.

<,fluffypony>, tewinget: I’d choose earlier PRs

<,tewinget>, fluffypony: yes, yes, I meant for after that PR

<,fluffypony>, if it’s decently borked by mid-September wij can revert 0MQ for release

<,fluffypony>, tewinget: so what I’m telling is PR soon, plx

<,fluffypony>, is there anything else or can wij call it?

<,tewinget>, I’d say go nuts for your kovri meeting, wij’re not going anywhere

<,tewinget>, so if something else comes up, address it after that meeting

Related movie: Hashrate Compels Premature Monero Hard Fork

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *