dev meeting 2016-03-05 logs

_posts/2016-03-05-overview-and-logs-for-the-dev-meeting-held-on-2016-03-05.md

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+---
+layout: post
+title: Overview and Logs for the Dev Meeting Held on 2016-03-05
+summary: Clarification on ringCT next steps, Trezor integration status, net_skeleton replacement
+tags: [dev diaries, core, crypto]
+author: gingeropolous
+---
+
+*March 5th, 2016*
+
+# Logs
+
+
+**\<fluffypony>** dev meeeeeeeting
+**\<fluffypony>** role call
+**\<gingeropolous>** ping
+**\<fluffypony>** no problem :)
+**\<fluffypony>** hyc / moneromooo / warptangent / luigi1112 / smooth 
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** smooth, luigi1112, othe, NoodleDoodle, ArticMine, warptangent, moneromooo, hyc
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** pingping
+**\<fluffypony>** or any other luigi's
+**\<warptangent>** present
+**\<othe>** my body is here too
+**\<ArticMine>** present
+**\<fluffypony>** lol
+**\<fluffypony>** othe: but your mind is... ?
+**\<fluffypony>** ok let's start
+**\<othe>** i dont know where it is fluffypony
+**\<moneromooo>** er, hi ?
+**\<fluffypony>** open pull requests: mostly just DB stuff by warptangent and hyc 
+**\<fluffypony>** will be merged within the next couple of hours
+**\<warptangent>** ok
+**\<Ibragim>** how are you guys?
+**\<warptangent>** glad for the weekend
+**\<fluffypony>** merged pull requests in the last couple of weeks: unit test fixes, threading fixes, lots of little things
+**\<fluffypony>** I suppose the big stuff is hyc's readtxn changes
+**\<othe>** is the exp/performance stuff from warptangent also to be merged in?
+**\<fluffypony>** warptangent / moneromooo: do one of you want to give us an overview of readtxn?
+**\<warptangent>** not soon
+**\<othe>** and should we add the trezor support from NoodleDoodle ?
+**\<fluffypony>** othe: we're doing PR review first
+**\<warptangent>** the txn cursors enable lmdb to read and write more efficiently
+**\<warptangent>** hyc added write cursors and then read cursors to cover just about all the DB operations
+**\<fluffypony>** cool
+**\<fluffypony>** re: warptangent's performance changes 
+**\<fluffypony>** we have to implement some sort of migration system 
+**\<fluffypony>** we can't expect people in production to keep dropping and re-syncing 
+**\<fluffypony>** so that would stall it being merged
+**\<hyc>** hi, sorry I'm late. our experience with blockchain_import indicates migration will be slow
+**\<warptangent>** also, migration won't take place until after things settle with the db changes and testing.
+**\<warptangent>** development is ongoing here https://github.com/warptangent/bitmonero/branches in the exp/performance branch
+**\<fluffypony>** hyc: well at the very least we need to detect that the current DB isn't what we expect, and that it must be converted or redownloaded
+**\<fluffypony>** *resynced
+**\<hyc>** right. well fortunately the DBs have version stamps so that's straightforward
+**\<fluffypony>** yeah
+**\<fluffypony>** ok let's move on to trezor
+**\<fluffypony>** NoodleDoodle: are your changes stable enough to PR?
+**fluffypony** plays elevator hold music
+**\<fluffypony>** ok whilst we wait for that 
+**\<fluffypony>** there's been some discussion about fees with the price rise
+**\<fluffypony>** any thoughts on the fee thing?
+**\<othe>** i think they are still fine
+**\<ArticMine>** My thought is that fees will ultimately have to be tied to the blocksize
+**\<gingeropolous>** what will be the price point when they change?
+**\<fluffypony>** at the moment it's like $0.012 per kb I think
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** Ideally we would wait for it to settle down a bit
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** the price
+**\<fluffypony>** yeah
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** Too soon for adjustments imo
+**\<gingeropolous>** true
+**\<fluffypony>** gingeropolous: dropping fees is a hard fork, so ideally we want to bundle it into the October fork or whatever 
+**\<othe>** 1 cent is nothing
+**\<ArticMine>** You mean fees are in the consensus code
+**\<fluffypony>** ArticMine: yes - we don't allow 0 fee transactions 
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** We could just calculate the average over the last 6 months
+**\<jwinterm>** I think ArticMine's point about fees being tied to block size is interesting, as block size goes up, fee per kb declines, linearly I guess
+**\<fluffypony>** BitcoinErrorLog has been talking about "magic number automation", he might have some thoughts on it too
+**\<fluffypony>** he's offline atm
+**\<fluffypony>** jwinterm: yes
+**\<hyc>** fee tied to blocksize - but you can't predict the blocksize when you create a txn to someone
+**\<fluffypony>** hyc: we can use the median
+**\<warptangent>** the tx size
+**\<ArticMine>** It is because fess are tied to the emission and blocksize via the bock penalty
+**\<jwinterm>** right, unpenalized max block size
+**\<ArticMine>** So we could actually use a formula based on emission and block size
+**\<ArticMine>** So that the min fee corresponds to a low position in the penalty
+**\<ArticMine>** say around 5%
+**\<luigi1114>** present!
+**\<warptangent>** is anyone aware of another coin using a similar scheme with also using the block size? seems worth looking into.
+**\<fluffypony>** not that I know of
+**\<ArticMine>** This only applies to cryptonote
+**\<gingeropolous>** i think it'd be awesome to find a way to do it automatically, as opposed to hardforks
+**\<ArticMine>** but likely Monero would be first
+**\<hyc>** it sounds good. especially since emission and blocksize are already automatic
+**\<fluffypony>** ok let's sketch that out and see what we come up with
+**\<fluffypony>** in the meantime, we need to push 0.9.2 out
+**\<ArticMine>** I can put something together
+**\<fluffypony>** I was holding off on it until the meeting
+**\<ArticMine>** on fees
+**\<hyc>** I'm still hitting SIGBUS on ARMv7 but go ahead with current PRs and don't wait for anything more from me
+**\<fluffypony>** ok
+**\<fluffypony>** moneromooo: how are you feeling on an upstream merge to dev?
+**\<hyc>** I don't see my test resolving this soon
+**\<fluffypony>** the current RPC interface is starting to become a problem for multiple concurrent wallet sessions
+**\<moneromooo>** I'm waiting for 0.9.2 to be tagged first so that no new patches go there.
+**\<fluffypony>** ok
+**\<moneromooo>** (or few anyway)
+**\<moneromooo>** Why is it a problem ?
+**\<moneromooo>** The new one seems to be made to be non thread safe fwiw.
+**\<fluffypony>** moneromooo: Peter Todd and I have hit the issue with scanning a new wallet when other wallets are open
+**\<fluffypony>** and I don't think we should necessarily waste time trying to optimise an interface that's going away
+**\<moneromooo>** Oh what does this break ?
+**\<fluffypony>** it makes it slooooow
+**\<moneromooo>** Ah, fair enough. Did you try with the 0mq one ?
+**\<fluffypony>** no - was in the air (literally) :-P
+**fluffypony** ponders 
+**\<fluffypony>** oh yes
+**\<luigi1114>** I would prefer new wallets don't auto-refresh, but I understand why it was added
+**\<fluffypony>** net_skeleton become Fossa which became Mongoose
+**\<moneromooo>** which needs to become gone ?
+**\<fluffypony>** yes
+**\<fluffypony>** the only licenses they have available are GPL and a commercial license 
+**\<fluffypony>** which doesn't play well with ours
+**\<ArticMine>** We would have to go GPL
+**\<fluffypony>** basically we just need a library that plays well with HTTPS, and supports authentication 
+**\<fluffypony>** and is compatible with our license 
+**\<fluffypony>** something to keep eyes out for 
+**\<fluffypony>** next up: ringCT
+**\<fluffypony>** warptangent: you were chatting to Shen - what's the latest on that?
+**\<warptangent>** i've begun to familiarize myself with what will need to be done, and development on that will go on top of the newer database branch
+**\<fluffypony>** we'll be opening Github issues or Forum threads, either or, for the specific decisions we have to make around things like ring size
+**\<warptangent>** a forum thread would work well for the first issue re: floating point or fixed
+**\<fluffypony>** luigi1114: you had some thoughts on that, iirc?
+**\<luigi1114>** I do
+**\<moneromooo>** I feel like I've missed a lot of stuff, somehow.
+**\<gingeropolous>** im still getting woops something went wrong when click on the bell on the forum... not that I need to do much for these topics, but just throwin it out there.
+**\<fluffypony>** gingeropolous: thanks, will take a look at the error log
+**\<moneromooo>** What's this about floating point ?
+**\<luigi1114>** I think a forum or other untimed format would be easier though
+**\<warptangent>** it's a decision to be made about the confidential transactions scheme
+**\<moneromooo>** Alright. First I've heard of it.
+**\<luigi1114>** it's how many amounts can be represented
+**\<luigi1114>** size tradeoffs basically
+**\<moneromooo>** So since I've not seen that conversation nor arguments, I'll just say "floating point is only fine if you really know what you're doing".
+**\<luigi1114>** it's more a design decision
+**\<fluffypony>** moneromooo: first you've heard of RingCT, or of the floating point / fixed issue?
+**\<moneromooo>** fp/fp
+**\<warptangent>** the conversation needs to take place in the forum and with Shen's input. moneromooo i only recently learned of it myself.
+**\<ArticMine>** It has significant economic implications
+**\<luigi1114>** we're not going to get very far here I agree warptangent
+**\<fluffypony>** ok - let's create a thread
+**\<fluffypony>** does anyone want to run with that?
+**\<luigi1114>** *silence*
+**\<fluffypony>** lol
+**\<fluffypony>** crickets
+**\<warptangent>** i can
+**\<fluffypony>** thanks warptangent 
+**\<warptangent>** i'll let NobleSir know when it's up too
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** Can I make a general remark?
+**\<fluffypony>** dEBRUYNE: of course
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** We should change mixin to ring size or another sufficient alternative
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** mixin sounds active
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** which isn´t the case
+**\<hyc>** we were just talking about ringsize just now, in context of RingCT
+**\<fluffypony>** I know - terminology and binary name changes are going to happen for 1.0
+**\<hyc>** sounds like ring size already has a meaning that we shouldn't confuse
+**\<fluffypony>** and making sure flags are all uniform etc.
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** hyc: Yeah I saw that, I just wanted some confirmation that we are going to change that
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** certainly with a lot of newcomers coming in it might be confusing
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** \<fluffypony> and making sure flags are all uniform etc. <= Great
+**\<fluffypony>** definitely
+**\<luigi1114>** hyc: I believe they are the same (function at least)
+**\<hyc>** ok, then that's straightforward
+**\<luigi1114>** ring size is the community agreed replacement for (mixin+1)
+**\<warptangent>** well number of bytes in a ringct is different than what's currently mixin count
+**\<warptangent>** i think that's hyc's concern
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** Then we should name them similiar
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** shouldn´t
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** *
+**\<hyc>** yes. I didn't follow ringct closely, but the fact that floating point is even an option means the two are quite different
+**\<warptangent>** it's likely the latter is the one most users will even be aware of.
+**\<warptangent>** but it's something to consider.
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** warptangent: Agree, perhaps we could ask NobleSir if he has a sufficient synonym
+**\<luigi1114>** \<warptangent> well number of bytes in a ringct is different than what's currently mixin count <= this doesn't parse for me
+**\<fluffypony>** afaik users don't choose anything with ringCT, though
+**\<luigi1114>** floating point/exponents/bitsize has nothing to do with ring size and won't be named similarly
+**\<warptangent>** luigi1112: just the storage size for a ringct, if referred to as "ring size" could be confusing for those using "ring size" to refer to mixin count
+**\<luigi1114>** ok
+**\<luigi1114>** yes the former will/should not be named that way
+**\<luigi1114>** signature size or something
+**\<gingeropolous>** yeah, i was not aware ring size already was used for something
+**\<hyc>** maybe this isn't the place for the discussion but I would have preferred something other than "ring size" for mixin count. masking factor, blinding factor.
+**\<hyc>** something that actually conveys the purpose.
+**\<gingeropolous>** as hyc mentioned, decoys is actually a good name / descriptor
+**\<palexander>** Agree there.
+**\<gingeropolous>** but it sounds too subterfugey
+**\<luigi1114>** yell on the reddit thead :)
+**\<fluffypony>** the thread it still open
+**\<fluffypony>** lol
+**\<luigi1114>** anyway not a good place here
+**\<hyc>** ok
+**\<luigi1114>** or time
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** hyc: Ring size was just brought up earlier, it was more about the idea of changing it
+**\<malmenonphome>** Just arrived, what the subject?
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** Another term is fine by me as well
+**\<warptangent>** i do like ring size fwiw.
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** malmenonphome: Changing the term mixin to something else
+**\<luigi1114>** this is basically a community thing, not a dev thing
+**\<NoodleDoodle>** @fluffypony not yet, I'll work on osx/linux this weekend and see from there. As for the firmware, I'll request a pull upstream once I've added it to github. They are interested in merging it upstream.
+**\<luigi1114>** (beyond making sure the name makes sense)
+**\<dEBRUYNE>** luigi1114: Let´s continue to the next subject then :)
+**\<malmenonphome>** Ah, ok, I agree with ring size as well, but we should think in other languages how it sounds too
+**\<warptangent>** masking/blinding factor or decoy is more descriptive, but ring size could be a happy medium between that and not making every user have to feel like a rebel.
+**\<binaryFate>** ring size is ok for me, if it doesn't convey meaning people will learn and that's a good thing
+**\<malmenonphome>** In Portuguese... Tamanho de anel
+**\<luigi1114>** right the problem with mixin is that people think it's a typo for the other word
+**\<fluffypony>** yeah
+**\<fluffypony>** ok - that's a discussion to have on the reddit thread or wherever
+**\<warptangent>** mixin definitely gives the idea, as we've seen, that it requires other active senders
+**\<fluffypony>** we're not in a position to make a decision on it in this meeting
+**\<malmenonphome>** I agree
+**\<gingeropolous>** any word on the dev branch? as one who has been summarizing these meetings, the can has been kicked twice now.
+**\<luigi1114>** we can can kick better than bitcoin huh
+**\<warptangent>** it was discussed above?
+**\<fluffypony>** gingeropolous: did you miss part of the meeting?
+**\<gingeropolous>** perhaps. sorry. /me hides
+**\<fluffypony>** is ok
+**\<fluffypony>** in the summary you can just be like "the official troll-appointed dev was late"
+**\<fluffypony>** :-P
+**warptangent** wonders who the first dev-appointed troll will be.
+**\<fluffypony>** hah hah
+**\<fluffypony>** ok I think that brings the meeting to a close