Ravencoin Dev Meeting (March 5, 2021)

Cryptocurrency News and Public Mining Pools

Ravencoin Dev Meeting (March 5, 2021)

[4:00 PM] Kent Bull: here The agenda for today is just a bit longer than the announcement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11EZLIgGBBKlA73-sSAJFFrlNbElKkJkMpTBzHuXElQY/edit?usp=sharing

Google Docs

2021-03-05 RVN DEV MEETING

Coordinator: Kent Bull kentbull#0941 Attendees: In Discord #development-meetings Agenda Items: Proposal 001: status update Proposal 002: discussion Adding a community projects channel Any additional topics from the potential topics list Potential Topics: Kent: Adding a channel to discuss comm…

[4:00 PM] Kent Bull: Agenda Items:

Proposal 001: status update

Proposal 002: discussion

Adding a community projects channel

Any additional topics from the potential topics list

[4:00 PM] Kent Bull: See the google doc for potential topics we can chat about following Proposal 001 and 002

[4:02 PM] Kent Bull: Lol, did I get the week wrong?

[4:02 PM] Kent Bull: looks like the channel is locked. I'll see if I can get it unlocked.

[4:04 PM] Kent Bull: Ok, just to make sure I don't break things someone DM me what I need to change. It looks like I can edit the channel.

[4:04 PM] Kent Bull: I apologize for the delay.

[4:05 PM] Kent Bull: Ok, I think I figured it out.

[4:05 PM] Kent Bull: Can someone try posting?

[4:05 PM] Tron: Hi

[4:06 PM] Pathfinder: waves

[4:06 PM] Kent Bull: Hello!

[4:06 PM] π•Ώπ–π–Š 𝕯𝖔𝖓 π•³π–†π–—π–Žπ–˜π–™π–”. CEO ΰΈΏ:

[4:06 PM] Vincent: hola

[4:06 PM] Shaun Neal: yep

[4:06 PM] Kent Bull: Ok, if someone else fixed it thanks :stuck_out_tongue:

[4:06 PM] kinkajou: Hi everyone

[4:07 PM] Tron: Got it

[4:07 PM] Kent Bull: Hello everyone!

[4:07 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: Hi


[4:07 PM] Phreak: :wave:

[4:07 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: Dropping this here for links to proposal 1 and 2. https://ravencoin.foundation/proposals

[4:07 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Hey Kent, would you mind keeping whatever we don't get to today on the agenda for next week's meeting?

[4:07 PM] Kent Bull: Yes, Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper I've got the last three meetings in Google Docs

[4:07 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: :thumbsup:

[4:07 PM] Kent Bull: To jump right in from this late start we have three primary agenda items for today:

[4:07 PM] Kent Bull: Proposal 001: status update

Proposal 002: discussion

Adding a community projects channel

[4:08 PM] Vincent: #asset-development ?

[4:08 PM] Kent Bull: I propose we discuss the existing proposals and then have a short discussion about a community projects channel.

Anything else we should add to the agenda?

[4:09 PM] Kent Bull: Vincent Possibly, I'll add that to the notes and then bring that up.

[4:09 PM] Vincent: just a suggestion for the project channel (may relabel it

[4:09 PM] sirrumz: Possible to introduce some node awareness?

[4:09 PM] Kent Bull: Here's the link to the full agenda again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11EZLIgGBBKlA73-sSAJFFrlNbElKkJkMpTBzHuXElQY/edit#

[4:10 PM] Kent Bull: u/sirrumz I just added that to the "Ideas from meeting" section of our google doc

[4:10 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Ready… Set… Go!

[4:10 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: Proposal 1 – Status update where are we?

[4:10 PM] Kent Bull: Ok, just to keep things moving let's chat about Proposal 001

[4:10 PM] Kent Bull: Tron Do we have any updates on the security review?

[4:11 PM] Tron: Meeting was delayed. Scheduled for Monday at 1:30 MST

[4:12 PM] Kent Bull: Cool, I'll put that in the notes. I know I said I would write a negative test for the multisig capabilities. I haven't got to that yet though it's on my list. I will post it as a separate PR if P001's PR is merged soon.

[4:12 PM] Vincent: Still gonna cost 3x the cost of the actual coding?

[4:12 PM] Tron: Sorry it’s actually next Friday.

[4:13 PM] Tron: This is a competitive company. No bid from them yet.

[4:13 PM] Tron: Kudelski

[4:13 PM] Kent Bull: Ok, cool, we'll add the bid to our notes once it comes through.

What other updates or discussion on P001 do we have?

[4:13 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: What kind of timescales are we looking at for the audit?

[4:14 PM] Tron: Depends on the company

[4:15 PM] Kent Bull: I imagine they could complete the audit within a week or two from the date they start. I'm sure they'll give a more precise projection once their bid comes through.

[4:15 PM] Kent Bull: let's say this audit completes in March this means we would need to get a network update started in April, possibly the end of March.

[4:16 PM] Kent Bull: This will be the first time I've been a part of this community during a network update. What should we plan for and get going in order to have a successful network update?

[4:16 PM] Jeroz: Why not run it on testnet in parallel of the audit?

[4:17 PM] Tron: Communication with exchanges and miners.

[4:17 PM] Tron: Mining pools specifically.

[4:18 PM] Tron: It would be good to run the transition on testnet.

[4:18 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: I just would like to have time on testnet to try it out. 4 weeks ideally at least to try break stuff.

[4:18 PM] Kent Bull: How many testnet nodes do we have running? Do we have a visualizer for testnet nodes?

[4:19 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: https://testnet.ravencoin.network/network

[4:19 PM] Kent Bull: cool, thanks

[4:19 PM] ANCIENTSEVVY: thassalotta nodes!

[4:20 PM] Kent Bull: So we'll need to communicate with all the testnet nodes to schedule this update.

[4:20 PM] Kent Bull: We could set a goal of starting the testnet deployment towards the end of March, beginning of April. Does that sound about right, too aggressive, or too slow?

[4:21 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: its a standard fork. the block producer is normally minermore.

[4:21 PM] ANCIENTSEVVY: the testnet ought to be able to move quick right?

[4:22 PM] Kent Bull: Just counted, looks like we have 39 test nodes.

[4:22 PM] unclear: Then decide what's first: functional testing in the test net or audit

[4:22 PM] Kent Bull: We could mint a build off of the pull request and start testing prior to start of the audit. Have we done that before?

[4:22 PM] boatsandhoes: ^+1

[4:22 PM] unclear: If audit comes first, test net will become a validation

[4:22 PM] Kent Bull: We'd be distributing a binary off a non-master branch. Are we okay with that?

[4:23 PM] Tron: Yes, but not as the main download.

[4:24 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: I dont see why running the testnet and audit in parallel is a bad thing. It could help the auditer. they would likely run their own reg chain anyway if the audited code wasnt on testnet.

[4:24 PM] ANCIENTSEVVY: yeah

[4:24 PM] ANCIENTSEVVY: break it in the sandbox

[4:24 PM] Kent Bull: Right

[4:25 PM] Tron: It’s fine to run in parallel.

[4:25 PM] Kent Bull: What kind of communication lines do we have with all the testnet nodes? It would be cool if we could send a message to all of them with RVN messaging.

[4:25 PM] Kent Bull: Just for coordinating the updates I mean.

[4:26 PM] Jeroz: We used to have minermore push the fork to testnet and communicate it in #testnet

[4:27 PM] Kent Bull: K, cool, I'm taking notes here, learning our processes.

[4:27 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: Most of the testnet nodes pay attention to the dev meetings and would swap over if they want to try the p2sh code imo. otherwise they have to mine the older testnet.

[4:28 PM] Kent Bull: ok, got you. As long as they all feel included and notified that's what I want to make sure happens so that all the testnet node operators feel like they know what's going on.

[4:28 PM] Kent Bull: In addition to posting to #testnet what else should we put in our plan to reach out to tesnet node runners?

[4:29 PM] Kent Bull: And, if you don't mind, what is minermore?

[4:29 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: So when are we looking to get a recommended build ready to try on testnet, separate to the main binaries?

[4:29 PM] Kent Bull: we could make a build today from the PR

[4:29 PM] parole895: It's a pool

[4:29 PM] Jeroz: Pool, buzzdave operates it now. We could ask him if he would like to help.

[4:30 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: https://minermore.com/pool/RVNt/

[4:30 PM] parole895: Great idea jeroz

[4:30 PM] Jeroz: Minermore was the only one that had a GPU port for testnet

[4:31 PM] Kent Bull: This sounds like a good plan. We can update it as we go along. Anything else we should add to our testnet plan for the Proposal001 update or are we ready to move along to the next agenda item?

[4:31 PM] unclear: Gogogo

[4:31 PM] Kent Bull: Alrighty

[4:31 PM] Kent Bull: Next item is: Proposal 002: discussion

[4:31 PM] Kent Bull: Here's a link to the proposal: https://gateway.ravencoinipfs.com/ipfs/QmNj9ozPddyh9hKY8H1k4cBeWzE4ptKcDY6fTzRF2Fo8Cu

[4:31 PM] Kent Bull: and the description: The Ravencoin Foundation proposes to fund the incorporation

of hardware wallet support in the Ravencoin core QT wallet

[4:32 PM] Kent Bull: Let's start out with just a discussion of important thoughts and we'll round it out to action items toward the end.

[4:32 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Rad

[4:33 PM] buzzdave: Yeah can do

[4:34 PM] Kent Bull: FYI I'm keeping notes in the agenda google doc for what happens here, for reference.

[4:34 PM] Jeroz: Someone suggested to actually move this to electrum and keep core clear, since there seemed to be long debate on bitcoin core for it too

[4:34 PM] buzzdave: I'm just going to make the whole pool a 1% donation fee pool to the foundation

[4:34 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Trezor I'd imagine?

[4:34 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: I would prefer to keep hardware wallets out of core.

[4:34 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: It gets messy.

[4:34 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: I would advocate for more electrum support though.

[4:35 PM] Kent Bull: When you say it gets messy what would you say are the messy parts?

[4:35 PM] Tron: Ok, how about adding it to the working RVN Electrum?

[4:35 PM] Jeroz: Yeah, we could really use a more lightweight (SPV) wallet (with hardware and asset support)


[4:35 PM] Tron: Adding asset support to Electrum?

[4:36 PM] ANCIENTSEVVY: :heart:

[4:36 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: Assets in electrum would be the more correct and secure imo.

[4:36 PM] Tron: I’m sold.

[4:36 PM] unclear: Have anyone cheked feasibility?

[4:37 PM] kralverde: ?

[4:37 PM] Kent Bull: So does this mean we would do Electrum updates in addition to some QT updates or would this be Electrum updates instead of QT updates?

[4:37 PM] Tron: No. Electrum, as I understand it, queries ravend.

[4:37 PM] parole895: Good support for ledger and trezor hardware wallets would be welcome to keep your rvn safe

[4:38 PM] Tron: Asset UTXOs can be queried.

[4:38 PM] Jeroz: Yeah it's python based and queries dedicated nodes.

[4:38 PM] unclear: So it's still rpc/cli envelope?

[4:38 PM] sirrumz: Ledger support would be nice

[4:38 PM] Jeroz: with public servers

[4:39 PM] unclear: Then rpc ))

[4:39 PM] Tron: Some hardware wallets might not work. I think Trezor parses the transaction so it may not be compatible with asset transactions.

[4:39 PM] TTGrub: ^

Asset transactions are very special

[4:39 PM] digs: So, no hardware support because it is "messy"?

[4:39 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: instead of.

[4:39 PM] TTGrub: Tron is there a plan to develop documentation of raw asset transfers in transactions? Or

[4:39 PM] Kent Bull: Which repositories would we commit code to if we want to do RVN Electrum? Proposal 002 specifically references pull requests to Ravencoin Github (https://github.com/RavenProject/Ravencoin) so if we want to do RVN Electrum we'd need to update the proposal.

[4:40 PM] TTGrub: Yeah we would need to archive that one and make a new one

[4:40 PM] Kent Bull: Seems like that should be addressed as a part of Proposal 002

[4:40 PM] TTGrub: Kent Bull awesome

[4:40 PM] Tron: No plans, but it is a good idea.

[4:40 PM] TTGrub: Its really one of the final things I need to figure out ngl.

[4:41 PM] Kent Bull: I'm thinking whoever does P002 would be a great candidate to write the docs for asset transfers since they'll have to understand them anyway.

[4:41 PM] TTGrub: for the browser wallet.

I've started on dissecting raw txs generated by the rpc console bit by bit. But Crypto never been a strong suite

[4:41 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: https://github.com/RavencoinFoundation/electrum-raven would be ideal to keep updated.



Electrum-raven; Ravencoin thin client. Contribute to RavencoinFoundation/electrum-raven development by creating an account on GitHub.

[4:41 PM] Kent Bull: And, full disclosure, I'm shooting for P002, though I wouldn't stop anyone from beating me to it :stuck_out_tongue:

[4:41 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: especially with assets etc.

[4:42 PM] Kent Bull: Ok, great, I'll add that to the notes LSJI07 – BWS

[4:42 PM] digs: This seems like a pretty significant decision without much discourse. It would seem like mainstream support of this project would be best suited by having core hardware support.

[4:42 PM] Tron: We should coordinate proposals so we’re not duplicating effort.

[4:43 PM] boatsandhoes: Is this an okay channel to purpose P003; GUI in qt to read incoming memos?

[4:43 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Excellent idea

[4:43 PM] Tron: I set up a Ravencoin Foundation GitHub user to try gitcoin issue funding.

[4:43 PM] Tron: 10% extra cost though

[4:44 PM] Kent Bull: digs What are you thinking core hardware support entails?

And, there has been some discussion offline about this as well. We have some catch up to do here to articulate the full thought process.

[4:44 PM] Kent Bull: Yes, I'll add that to the agenda.

[4:44 PM] boatsandhoes: Why not just do it all in house. Cut out gitcoin from the equation, but copy the process?

[4:45 PM] boatsandhoes: In house as in the foundation

[4:46 PM] boatsandhoes: Then pocket the 10% for the foundation

[4:47 PM] digs: Well, if there is context outside of this discussion then I cannot speak to that. I just mean that reduction of the barrier to entry encourages widespread adoption. The goal should be the simplest UI/UX for all users. So, if a person wanted to provide the user base, which supports the entire project, to have the best user experience adding hardware wallets for RVN, what would that look like?

[4:47 PM] digs: If this an MVP approach, okay.

[4:48 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: Using electrum and incorporating assets has been discussed in #development for a while. As has ommiting hardware support in the core wallet. See https://discord.com/channels/429127343165145089/429133749867905024/816107199545212970 and other comment by Hans

[4:48 PM] Gnem: I'm late, but better than missing!

[4:48 PM] digs: The focus shouldn't be on what is messy for development. It should be what is best for the user base and new user adoption.

[4:48 PM] Jeroz:

The goal should be the simplest UI/UX for all users

Regular users that use RVN/Assets for transactions benefit more from SPV wallets like electrum.

[4:49 PM] Vincent: QT needs a lot of work… I'd say add some depth to P003

[4:49 PM] Pathfinder: Regular users will most likely just download the QT wallet.

[4:49 PM] boatsandhoes: Will do that this week

[4:49 PM] Pathfinder: Regular users don't know electrum from their elbows.

[4:50 PM] boatsandhoes: Yet πŸ˜‰

[4:50 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Why send users elsewhere?

[4:50 PM] Kent Bull: If we're going for the simplest UI/UX for all users we should specify, users in general or hardware wallet users?

[4:50 PM] Jeroz: just a quote I got forwarded recently


[4:50 PM] sirrumz: I find regular users like to use hardware wallets, because regular users tend to be new and appreciate physical control of their coins. Ledger support would be helpful imo

[4:51 PM] digs: Jeroz So, then that would be in addition to, not a replacement of. As a user gets deeper into the weeds, and learns about a shiny new idea such as hardware wallets, and then is disappointed to learn that RVN doesn't support that, that new user might jump from the project to something even more shiny. One might argue, to heck with them then, but that doesn't support the idea of widespread adoption.

[4:51 PM] digs: I will stfu now, I have made my case.

[4:51 PM] Jeroz: yeah, 10 years from now, a regular user wont run a core wallet….. it takes weeks to sync and you need an extra hard drive just for the wallet.

[4:52 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: I agree and using an electrum based wallet is normal for hardware wallets. Hence i would massively support developing that further for ravencoin users.

[4:52 PM] boatsandhoes: Ten years from now, the average cell phone may have 4 TB of storage capacity

[4:52 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: This project isn't guaranteed 10 years

[4:52 PM] Jeroz: Same for bitcoin core right now. The vast majority of the people use lightweight wallets to hold btc.

[4:53 PM] MaletoX: new regular user here

using the core is my preferable choice instead of a hardware as i have instant access at any point and does not require anything from me

[4:53 PM] unclear: Yoi would need to implement RAID of blocks to distribute the data between nodes

[4:53 PM] boatsandhoes: Zombie apocalypse is always on the table

[4:53 PM] Vincent: asset creation too expensive…. off my soapbox [for] now :yum:

[4:54 PM] Jeroz: Large STOs worth billions… you really want some hardware and multisig wallets in between the transactions

[4:54 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: We getting off topic, and short on time.

[4:54 PM] Kent Bull: So This would mean core would support things like Trezor, Ledger, and the like, right?

[4:55 PM] Kent Bull: It seems smart to have core support hardware wallets and I suspect that work could be leveraged to add additional hardware wallet capability to other wallets, like Electrum.

What about having P002 be for adding hardware wallet support to RVN core and another proposal for Electrum support?

[4:55 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: I think having the mindset to continue to think about ways to generate and maintain user interest will only be of benefit to the future of this project

[4:56 PM] Kent Bull: Agreed. Do we think existing and new users will want to use RVN core with hardware wallets? It would be nice to have some data to back up or challenge our assertions here.

[4:56 PM] Vincent: affordable for the masses to create with

[4:57 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: I would personally

[4:57 PM] Kent Bull: One of our main datasets right now is that people use RVN core so extending RVN core could be a good next step. Any other datasets we have to make arguments with at the moment?

[4:57 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Or at least have that option if I so choose. Of course, no brainer

[4:58 PM] Kent Bull: And, yes, we're at the 50 minute mark, since we lost 7 minutes to chat being locked.

[4:58 PM] digs: One could create a poll and spam it in discord.

[4:58 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Adding additional tools to the QT wallet should always be in the back of our minds IMO

[4:58 PM] boatsandhoes: And on occasions in the front

[4:58 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Absolutely

[4:59 PM] Kent Bull: It seems like QT-first development will encourage testing and development so it seems like a smart move to me.

[4:59 PM] sirrumz: I mean realistically the most secure wallet is a hardware wallet. Rvn should have that option

[4:59 PM] Kent Bull: As much as I like going the Electrum route.

[4:59 PM] Jeroz: it would involve moving third party software into core. Which wallets are we going to support? which are we going to leave out?

[4:59 PM] digs: LSJI07 – BWS Can you elaborate any on the messy nature of adding to core and the idea that electrum based wallets would be a better use of dev time?

[4:59 PM] Jeroz: I really dont dare to touch that topic

[5:00 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: I do not feel comfortable adding hardware support to core, when our mobile and well used community electrum implementation are not completely user friendly. The helpdesk shows our priorities should be on mobile and electrum integrations. Perhaps even to core eventually. Prefer to have them running standalone first.

[5:00 PM] LSJI07 – BWS: including asset support.

[5:00 PM] digs: So, it is timing question for you.

[5:00 PM] digs: Not a one vs the other.

[5:00 PM] Rikki RATTOE Hotel Floor Pooper: Good questions indeed. I'll always defer to a general consensus from within the community on something like that

submitted by /u/Blockchain_Surfer
[link] [comments]