search

monero-project / meta

A Meta Repository for General Monero Project Matters
166 stars 71 forks source link

Seraphis wallet workgroup meeting #3 - Monday, 2022-11-28, 18:00 UTC; *NEW ROOM* #758

Closed rbrunner7 closed 1 year ago

rbrunner7 commented 1 year ago

Due to unfortunate circumstances where nobody is really to blame, we lost our Matrix room on the haveno.network server where we held the first two meetings. There is a new Matrix room #no-wallet-left-behind:monero.social set up as the new home of the workgroup:

https://matrix.to/#/#no-wallet-left-behind:monero.social

The bridged Libera.chat IRC channel stays #no-wallet-left-behind.

I know that already having a third room, and all people having to join yet again, is suboptimal, but a clean cut with a brand-new room seemed to be the best way to me out of this mess. monero.social is something like core Monero infrastructure and ultimately under control of the Monero Core Team, so I hope we have our definite home now :)

Because on the technical front not many new things developed during the week I propose we further discuss and maybe decide some public relations / marketing topics in this meeting that came up in the last MRL meeting:

  1. Do we already reach out to important ecosystem players like exchanges, and if yes what do we tell them about Seraphis and Jamtis?
  2. Do we write a second Seraphis-related blog post for getmonero.org (first one written by @UkoeHB is here), and if yes, what are our messages?
  3. What do you think about monthly Seraphis status reports posted to the Monero subreddit? Or any other suitable form of info to keep the wider community informed?
plowsof commented 1 year ago

Proof of concept for discussion. (list is not complete or final)

Question: Friday is the best day of the week

Exchanges Approve Disapprove Neutral Pending
Binance ⏳
Bisq ⏳
Haveno ⏳
Kraken ⏳
LocalMonero ⏳
MajesticBank ⏳
Serai ⏳
TradeOgre ⏳
@rbrunner7 has done all the ground work for Monero wallet here Monero Wallets Approve Disapprove Neutral Pending
Atomic(tm) ⏳
Cake ⏳
Coinomi ⏳
Core CLI ⏳
Core GUI ⏳
Edge ⏳
Exa Wallet ⏳
Exodus ⏳
Feather ⏳
Guarda ⏳
Monerujo ⏳
MyMonero ⏳
MyNero ⏳
NOW ⏳
RINO ⏳
Shruum ⏳
Stack ⏳
Trustee ⏳
WooKey ⏳
XMRWallet ⏳
Zelcore ⏳
Thirdparty Payment Processors/Gateways Approve Disapprove Neutral Pending
AcceptXMR ⏳
BTCpayServer ⏳
BitCart ⏳
CDPay ⏳
CoinPayments ⏳
CryptoWoo ⏳
GloBee ⏳
Monero-wp ⏳
MoneroPay ⏳
NowPayments ⏳
Hardware Wallets Approve Disapprove Neutral Pending
Ledger ⏳
Trezor ⏳
Projects Approve Disapprove Neutral Pending
Monero-js 🤷
Monero-lws ⏳
Monero-python ⏳
rbrunner7 commented 1 year ago

Regarding the Monery Wallets list above: A pretty up-to-date list of all "true" (i.e. non-custodial) wallet apps that support XMR can be found here in the workgroup wiki.

SamsungGalaxyPlayer commented 1 year ago

What are we approving or disapproving? A specific proposal, or Seraphis/JAMTIS generally?

plowsof commented 1 year ago

@SamsungGalaxyPlayer i had planned to make this a "Friday is the best day of the week" question to guage response times. i seem to have edited that out by accident (its just a proof of concept for discussion)

rbrunner7 commented 1 year ago 
<rbrunner7[m]1> Meeting time! Greetings - who is around?
<UkoeHB> hi
<dangerousfreedom> Hello
<JoshBabb[m]> Hello
<one-horse-wagon[> Hello.
<jberman[m]> hello
<Rucknium[m]> Hi
<rbrunner7[m]1> My proposal for meeting issues is here: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/758
<rbrunner7[m]1> And here I have written down some things that were decided in the first two meetings: https://github.com/seraphis-migration/strategy/wiki/Seraphis-Wallet-Coding-Conventions
<one-horse-wagon[> <UkoeHB> "No need to bad mouth them one-..." <- Didn't mean to come across that way.  Just pointing out some facts, nothing else.
<rbrunner7[m]1> As nobody opposed the subjects I proposed, let's try to tackle the first one: "Do we already reach out to important ecosystem players like exchanges, and if yes what do we tell them about Seraphis and Jamtis?"
<rbrunner7[m]1> I think we have to a little careful with the discussion today: Important subjects, but subjects that may easily lead to going off tangents, causing conflict because of very different opinions, and such. I hope we can avoid that.
<rbrunner7[m]1> One way seems to me to try to advance with discussing yes/no question as far as it makes sense.
<rbrunner7[m]1> So the first such question would be: Do you think we should already go public with our work on Seraphis and Jamtis, or would you prefer to fly a bit more under the radar for the time being?
<one-horse-wagon[> I am opposed to saying anything at this time.  We are just getting organized.  There is no rush.
<ofrnxmr[m]> I agree 
<dangerousfreedom> I guess it makes no sense without a (wallet) prototype.
<rbrunner7[m]1> I myself could not yet make my mind up. I'm undecided.
<rbrunner7[m]1> Although, being able to tell what we do is of course tempting.
<Rucknium[m]> Monero development is so decentralized that wallet developers do not know the overhaul they will have to do and are not involved in those conversations. (This is sarcasm by the way.)
<rbrunner7[m]1> Do I get a "yes" opinion?
<ofrnxmr[m]> I feel we need a wallet and probably a testnet before making making a lot of noise about it
<Rucknium[m]> If the group consensus is to keep it under wraps until it cannot be changed, then that's fine after all. Just think about what you are doing though.
<one-horse-wagon[> I think we should continue to advertise the meetings on the other Matrix rooms and try to expand the group here somewhat.
<UkoeHB> is the work somehow not public?
<one-horse-wagon[> Rucknium[m]: Nothing is being kept under wraps.
<rbrunner7[m]1> I see what Rucknium means. Maybe anybody can speculate a bit what kind of decisions and developments ecosystems players could possibly influence? I am a bit at a loss there, frankly.
<rbrunner7[m]1> UkoeHB: I guess the difference would be to actively reach out and contact them.
<ofrnxmr[m]> Wallet makers (Diego, vik, m2049r, etc are all aware)
<JoshBabb[m]> Right, what sort of public comments are needed?  Or is the goal to get more exchange and wallet devs here so as to be aware of development and maybe add input?
<rbrunner7[m]1> All the players that plowsof listed in the meeting meta issue.
<Rucknium[m]> rbrunner7: checksums are an obvious one (and the item that prompted this discussion IIRC). Checksums are not decided. And they will have to be implemented by many ecosystem players
<plowsof> and here is an example of a few entities you may want to contact (when the time is right ofcourse) https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/758#issuecomment-1328570401
<BusyBoredom[m]> Given this much heads-up, I think most exchanges would just stick a jira ticket with a deadline of 2024 in a corner somewhere and forget about it. 
<BusyBoredom[m]> We should wait until we have very concrete things to communicate, like "here's an example of how to check for incoming transactions post-fork, and here's how you test it on testnet _right now_"
<ofrnxmr[m]> 90% of the wallets dont bed to be contacted 
<ofrnxmr[m]> They use mymonero backend, and rely on mymonero (as with the last HF). Or they are scams and not recommended to anyone
<rbrunner7[m]1> As a contra-example maybe I can say - not a complaint just fact - I couldn't even get Monero devs to comment and make their voices heard, with my issues.
<rbrunner7[m]1> How would we fare with big exchanges then?
<ofrnxmr[m]> Binance supposedly has real world wallet issues. Hopefully whatever those are can be worked out
<rbrunner7[m]1> Has somebody more details about those wallet problems at Binance?
<ofrnxmr[m]> Selsta
<rbrunner7[m]1> (Just by the way)
<rbrunner7[m]1> Hmm, a bit surprisingly for me, I don't see yet a single clear "yes" except Rucknium 
<Rucknium[m]> It's fine. I wanted to bring it up, but if consensus is against, let's move on.
<plowsof> perhaps now 'too soon' but eventually yes 
<rbrunner7[m]1> And to quote gingeropolous from earlier: ""Dear exchange - which feature would you like in a cryptocurrency that undermines 21st century mechanisms of control?""
<plowsof> +1
<plowsof> ill still ask people if they feel friday is the best day of the week though :) 
<ofrnxmr[m]> Yeah. A lot of exchanges probably don't want to give direct input.. a lot of exchanges just expect a working product
<ofrnxmr[m]> Binance probably wants to make sure their wallet woes will be fixed though.
<BusyBoredom[m]> Re: contacting exchanges, if we want to ask for feedback then I think it should be to answer very specific questions. For example, "do you use accounts?". Open ended questions will almost certainly be ignored.
<Rucknium> +1
<ofrnxmr[m]> +1
<rbrunner7[m]1> Alright. Just saying, as we will probably go public sooner or later: Please deposit any good ideas of subjects to get feedback on with me, so we have them ready when we reach out.
<plowsof> +1
<one-horse-wagon[> rbrunner7[m]1: We are already public.  Everyone in Monero knows there is a Seraphis/Jametis project going on.
<rbrunner7[m]1> So it looks we can already move on to point 2. It's a bit related, but still "passive" info and not actively reaching out: Do we write a second Seraphis-related blog post for getmonero.org (first one written by @UkoeHB is here), and if yes, what are our messages?
<rbrunner7[m]1> First article: https://www.getmonero.org/2021/12/22/what-is-seraphis.html
<ofrnxmr[m]> That were working on a wallet and testnet and hope to have a working model by xyz 
<rbrunner7[m]1> It's quite technical, and a bit dated of course, given how old it is.
<rbrunner7[m]1> Hmm, giving any estimates was quite controversial in discussions over the last few days.
<ofrnxmr[m]> Once wallet and testnet are available, industry players can start to build their apps or exchanges around them etc. 
<ofrnxmr[m]> Were looking for devs in area x y z
<one-horse-wagon[> Instead of talking about new "papers", what about coming up with some detail to Seraphis that can be tried out and seen by everyone?
<rbrunner7[m]1> Such as?
<one-horse-wagon[> RID's coming to mind.  Telling people about new lengthy addresses, what it will do, how easy RID's will make them.  Assuming the problem with RID's can be solved.
<UkoeHB> I don't see any topic worth blogging about
<rbrunner7[m]1> Maybe an article on getmonero.org would be good as some knowledge base type of entry: How Seraphis and Jamtis now turned out to be - as constructs, so to say.
<rbrunner7[m]1> That old article still mentions Triptych. Maybe it makes sense to supersede with a more up-to-date Seraphis and Jamtis description?
<UkoeHB> eh there haven't been any big changes
<rbrunner7[m]1> Triptych just as an example.
<rbrunner7[m]1> Alright. However I do think you sell a bit under your value (does that saying exist in English?)
<one-horse-wagon[> rbrunner7[m]1: Not to beat a dead horse, but we don't have to sell Seraphis.  It's a done deal.  Everyone wants it.
<rbrunner7[m]1> Right. My idea was to inform, not to sell.
<ofrnxmr[m]> Even if they dont, that road doesnt get crossed until its usable 
<ofrnxmr[m]> I dont want to tease people until we have something. Reaching out to devs etc, always. But the public is just waiting and asking "are we there yet"
<rbrunner7[m]1> But anyway, it doesn't have to be something with an "official" stamp. Maybe I try something and put it into the project wiki, and then ask for opinions.
<UkoeHB> yes I think once there is a testnet running it would be good to make blog posts
<one-horse-wagon[> +1
<rbrunner7[m]1> Ok, given what happened with point 1, maybe not surprising people don't rave about point 2 either :)
<rbrunner7[m]1> That's an idea, writing something that tries to attract devs, not merely inform the community at large which may indeed misunderstand how close things are already.
<one-horse-wagon[> +1
<ofrnxmr[m]> +1
<one-horse-wagon[> UkoeHB: And a lot of them
<rbrunner7[m]1> They don't write themselves, you know :)
<rbrunner7[m]1> But yeah, of course.
<rbrunner7[m]1> What do people say about my idea in point 3: "What do you think about monthly Seraphis status reports posted to the Monero subreddit? Or any other suitable form of info to keep the wider community informed?"
<rbrunner7[m]1> I think I guess already ...
<dangerousfreedom> I think it is useful to keep track of our progress too.
<ofrnxmr[m]> I dont use Reddit enough to give solid input, but I think we should focus on keepibg things like reports posted perhaps on a Meta issue etc
<ofrnxmr[m]> Like milestones for a ccs 
<rbrunner7[m]1> Yes, why not, at least as long we don't start our push to go public.
<BusyBoredom[m]> I think ad-hoc communication with the reddit community is enough. When some big milestone is reached or when feedback is need on some design decision, make a reddit post. Monthly updates on reddit don't seem to provide a ton of value on their own IMO. 
<BusyBoredom[m]> Not to say monthly updates are bad. I just don't know if reddit is the ideal place to put them.
<UkoeHB> progress reports are good
<ofrnxmr[m]> Dont want too much noise, right. Need to keep the tine wasting inquries to a mininum
<ghostway[m]> I don't think I have a say in those things, but I agree. We don't want much noise currently
<UkoeHB> but yeah, if there isn't a lot to report each time then it doesn't make sense
<rbrunner7[m]1> About once a month sound good?
<one-horse-wagon[> ghostway[m]: Hey.  Glad to see you made it!
<ghostway[m]> Yep!
<UkoeHB> rbrunner7[m]1: maybe avoid setting an expectation about report frequency
<ofrnxmr[m]> Id say once a month after testnet 
<ofrnxmr[m]> After we get out feet off the ground  
<rbrunner7[m]1> I see people are pretty careful.
<rbrunner7[m]1> That's ok with me, just a bit surprising for me personally.
<ofrnxmr[m]> Summary of the progress reports from the meetings.
<rbrunner7[m]1> But I agree we don't have to emulate the excesses of the wider crypto community
<ofrnxmr[m]> Observer or revuo might already cover this
<rbrunner7[m]1> Alright. Does anybody have anything interesting to report beyond was was already discussed, or would like to discuss something specific in the remaining 20 minutes or so?
<rbrunner7[m]1> I can mention that I follow the checksum algorith story and wrote a question for tevador today here: https://github.com/seraphis-migration/wallet3/issues/37
<ofrnxmr[m]> Have we decided the jamtis key level?
<UkoeHB> key level?
<ofrnxmr[m]> Apologies if I missed it...
<rbrunner7[m]1> Key level?
<ofrnxmr[m]> View key*
<ofrnxmr[m]> Jamtis c etc
<UkoeHB> iirc jamtis is type janus B
<ofrnxmr> +1
<UkoeHB> with modifications
<rbrunner7[m]1> Still not quite sure what you mean, but I am not aware about any significant opposition against the key hierarchy as described by tevador.
<rbrunner7[m]1> That's already coded, right? In your library.
<dangerousfreedom> rbrunner7[m]: Now that he did some preliminary studies I will try to implement using the constant that he specified (and understand the numbers he got for the security of the checksum).
<rbrunner7[m]1> Splendid!
<ofrnxmr[m]> rbrunner7: for context https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/92
<ofrnxmr[m]> Thanks koe
<rbrunner7[m]1> Yes, I remember now, thanks. Already almost legendary, that issue :)
<rbrunner7[m]1> Ok, seems to me we can close the meeting a bit early. Thanks for attending, and see you next week, hopefully still the same Matrix room :)
<spacekitty420> +1
<ofrnxmr> +1
<UkoeHB> thanks rbrunner7[m]1 
<spacekitty420> +1
<ofrnxmr> +1