Dev Meeting Transcript (September 17, 2021)

[4:04 PM] Tron: Channel is open.

[4:09 PM] kinkajou: Hello!

[4:11 PM] theking: Hi All

[4:13 PM] JustaResearcher: Sup.

[4:15 PM] Tron: Just an update on the security audit. It has been paid, and I had a meeting yesterday. They should be able to start next week.

[4:15 PM] JustaResearcher: Good stuff, very nice.

[4:15 PM] theking: Thanks for the update Tron

[4:21 PM] kinkajou: Great news! What is the plan going forward for Ravencoin? Are we looking to immediately start more development on Hans' proposal or something else?

& will we continue to pay auditing companies going forward or do you foresee a point where we will have enough talented community developers to negate the need for additional security audits?

[4:25 PM] Tron: For a $1.2 billion project, security is paramount. I suspect if we keep this project very secure that future audits can probably be funded from our existing audit fund.

[4:27 PM] Tron: Meaning, the value of a very secure chain that continues to run without incident is likely to increase in value enough that the current RVN will be sufficient for future audits. This current audit used about 10% of the audit fund.

[4:32 PM] kinkajou: What sort of timeline are you looking at before the next set of updates for Ravencoin? I know the goal is to have as few as possible, but considering that this last one took nearly the entire year between coding and auditing (for really only one major update in P2SH for assets) I think we should start exploring that conversation as soon as possible.

[4:34 PM] kinkajou: For instance, there are a lot of updates we are missing to remain current with Bitcoin which makes it a bit difficult to share development resources IMO.

[4:36 PM] Tron: For non-major, and non-consensus related changes, they can be more frequent. Hard forks are a big deal and should be limited. Things that don't impact consensus (soft-fork) can be added and deployed without a flag-day or BIP9.

[4:36 PM] Tron: For example, UI improvements do not require everyone to update.

[4:38 PM] kinkajou: I assume we would still want security audits for these smaller upgrades, though?

[4:40 PM] Tron: It is much easier to review UI improvements. If the code does not impact consensus, then it just needs to be reviewed to make sure sneaky stuff isn't being added. Those are easy to detect. A UI change that tries to access wallet info is a red flag.

[4:42 PM] kinkajou: Right but for this update we had one audit for the P2SH code and a second audit for the non-P2SH code. Is this just because they are part of the same fork?

[4:42 PM] kinkajou: Or was there more than just UI/UX changes in the non-P2SH code?

[4:44 PM] Tron: They should've reviewed it all together. It was an artifact of trying to get P2SH reviewed while changes were still being added to the dev branch.

[4:44 PM] kinkajou: I only ask because given the frequency/cost of audits this year I wonder if it would make more sense for the foundation to hire another developer to help stay on top of the non-consensus related code updates.

[4:44 PM] Tron: There were more changes. Some that impacted key generation, which is another critical location.

[4:47 PM] Vincent: any plans…

[4:48 PM] Vincent: taproot just lauched

[4:48 PM] kinkajou: I personally believe our lack of SegWit to be a major hindrance to the progress of Ravencoin since nearly all layer2 Bitcoin upgrades require witnesses.

[4:50 PM] kinkajou: Even if I wanted to build a custom implementation for Ravencoin without SegWit – why as a developer would I do this when all of my work could become wasted time in the future?

[4:54 PM] HyperPeek: The implementation would still work in the future as segwit would always be optional, but I agree that porting existing stuff gets more and more complicated with ~10k commits behind BTC.

[4:55 PM] kinkajou: Right but the difference would be building something completely from scratch vs being able to utilize existing libraries and resources

[4:56 PM] Vincent: what would it take to get this moving…?

[4:56 PM] Vincent: why does it seem like no coders care

[4:56 PM] HyperPeek: Yes, I totally agree. Problem is time — even a tiny backport from upstream takes days including all testing and internal review we did so far. So without a full-time guy working on this it will be tricky, I guess.

[4:56 PM] kinkajou: Which brings me back to this: https://discord.com/channels/429127343165145089/482289959261175838/888525839833108480

[4:57 PM] HyperPeek: Coders for blockchain are really rare. Most go where the money is and that would not work for a small project like this.

[4:57 PM] Vincent: i will repeat my obvious claim.. if no coder has a bag worth improving this project (for self interest) than we are in trouble

[4:58 PM] HyperPeek: I agree, but I guess thats how it is…

[4:58 PM] kinkajou: Have to keep in mind the industry isn't just Bitcoin anymore. There are thousands of DeFi projects that provide devs with the opportunity to generate passive income for their work.

[4:58 PM] kinkajou: We have to compete with all of that.

[4:58 PM] Vincent: my bag is small… im here 4 yrs… funding my project… because of potential

[4:58 PM] Vincent: that's a sad claim

[4:59 PM] kinkajou: Instead of getting upset over the reality of the situation we should brainstorm ideas to compete with these DeFi projects without sacrificing our values.

[4:59 PM] Vincent: no bag holder wants to make it happen…!?!?!

[5:00 PM] sirrumz: Seems like coders need some more incentive.. and rightfully so

[5:01 PM] HyperPeek: Its not about money mostly. I run a company outside crypto and even there its almost impossible to hire devs currently. With crypto its 10 times harder.

[5:01 PM] kinkajou: Distributed systems engineers were already hard to come by and very expensive before this blockchain craze. It is going to require some resources IMO.

[5:01 PM] Vincent: rightfully so my a**… if their bag wont make them fincially secure…we have a problem

[5:02 PM] Vincent: no entreprenuers here..?

[5:02 PM] Mango Farm: I don’t want to interrupt the discussion. I’ll drop this and we can discuss any time even next week. I’m curious if anyone has thoughts on two things discussed this week in the nest.

1. Now that BTC core has added HW support into the core GUI, is this something folks would be interested in? When it was raised earlier in the year there was some reluctance expressed because Bitcoin had been debating it for years, so the foundation proposal was shifted to Electrum. Does the fact that they implemented it change the analysis?
2. There still is a lot of discussions about the expense of making unique assets. I’m wondering if there is any appetite for having a new kind of asset, not at root, that has unique asset properties but does not require a root? (With an open character in the regex at root).

[5:03 PM] kinkajou: I have no problems with hardware support in Core. Would only be beneficial IMO.

Also love the idea of the new unique asset assuming the cost is competitive

[5:03 PM] kinkajou: Any updates on ICE wallet? :slight_smile:

[5:04 PM] Mango Farm: Hardware done. Software nearly done. The proposal above would compete with ice wallet. Ice does not use the interface that BTC core uses. It can’t. But I think it would be good for RVN so I remain committed to raising it.

[5:04 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Ive been getting back up to speed in my c++

[5:04 PM] HyperPeek: I think once we got HW support working in electrum (Kralverde already did a PR to Ledger) it will technically not be a big problem to add it to core too, as the HW wallets would already have the required Firmware changes then.

[5:05 PM] Mango Farm: :thumbsup:

[5:05 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Ill try and make some ease of use changes to core and look into what segwit entails

[5:05 PM] Mango Farm: The last BTC release included a degree of HW support.

[5:06 PM] HyperPeek: The "problem" is assets — just rvn will probably just work, but assets require Firmware changes on the hardware wallets to work.

[5:06 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: I wanna get torv3 up an running too

[5:07 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Yep

[5:07 PM] Mango Farm: Yes.

[5:07 PM] Vincent: HyperPeek what do you suggest about the 10k commits behind BTC

[5:07 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Theoretically we just need to relax the checks

[5:07 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Follow in their footsteps :p

[5:07 PM] Spicy: When the poniz die we will have more

[5:07 PM] Vincent: yeah… how

[5:07 PM] kinkajou: Biz was also interested in working on SegWit/LN if still around

[5:08 PM] Mango Farm: Trezor has specific inputs to the API they don’t take a raw transaction as I recall. It may involve some doing here (if it hasn’t already been done) but nonetheless might be worth it. Hardware is critical for assets of significant value.

[5:08 PM] Biz: Indeed I am still around. Still interested in the work, just been busy lately

[5:08 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Correct, hyperpeek was looking into that

[5:09 PM] kinkajou: No worries, hope your recovery is going well! :slight_smile:

[5:10 PM] HyperPeek: This by itself is not a huge problem — we need to pick what is possible to add without too much other cross-references and see. Asset awareness is what is the hardest part, as that need totally new code whatever we do.

[5:10 PM] Mango Farm: Thoughts on non-root uniques? I know Vincent has had many discussions and posts on this. I think it’s a good idea if the burn was set higher than a unique under main.

[5:11 PM] kinkajou: Link for reference: https://github.com/RavenProject/Ravencoin/issues/996#issuecomment-919089691

[5:11 PM] Mango Farm: It would be used just about immediately

[5:12 PM] kinkajou: How fast can we get it coded? :slight_smile:

[5:12 PM] Vincent: should there be a SIG created…?

[5:12 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: That would fall under qt

[5:12 PM] Mango Farm: In my comment at the bottom of Jeroz’s I raised the possibility of using a free character so these uniques were not at root, to alleviate confusion between main assets, curated uniques (uniques under a main) and this new asset type.

[5:13 PM] Tron: Another option is to have someone with a root asset create them at a small profit.

[5:13 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: ^ that was my plan 😉

[5:13 PM] Vincent: While stillin the thought process.. i'm leaning against the non-root unique at this point

[5:13 PM] Mango Farm: That’s fine. I lean for.

[5:13 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Gotta get them atomic swaps working

[5:14 PM] Tron: If we do have root NFTs (unique asset), it needs to have a character to distinguish them. #<id> is reserved for tags, otherwise it would've been a good choice.

[5:15 PM] kinkajou: That seems to be the current workaround. The main problem is, those that are not active here on Discord or Reddit/Twitter have no clue these services exist. I suspect many see the 500RVN main asset cost and simply turn away.

[5:15 PM] Vincent: My concern broght me back to the admin asset controlling the sub assets… some can own/create a harmful logofor an admin asset if they do not control the non-root

[5:15 PM] Tron: I prefer the idea of multiple (for profit) entities making root assets and allowing the creation under the root.

[5:15 PM] Mango Farm: Main asset come with all sorts of properties that a user may not want or need (ability to reissue, ability to issue subs and uniques within their namespace). Those benefits should come with a higher cost. But there’s a whole set of use cases out there that don’t need those properties. In a world with $10 RVN (hypothetical) those uses remain valid.

[5:15 PM] Vincent: as i said the other night… the admin may not own the 'logo'

[5:15 PM] kinkajou: More utility/functionality never a bad thing IMO so long as it is implemented correctly.

[5:16 PM] Mango Farm: My issue with that is it is centralized. Users shouldn’t have to rely on the mango farms of the world to make an asset. We use the root/unique concept for RIP14 encryption tags to save cost. But it isn’t ideal. Same for art NFTs.

[5:16 PM] kinkajou: The two are not exclusive either. It would still be twice the cost for a unique asset not bound to root vs paying someone to do it for you. Both methods would still serve a unique purpose.

[5:16 PM] Sevvy (with New Mod Smell): We have other symbols available correct?

[5:18 PM] Mango Farm: I view it like this. Curated assets like PICASSO#PAINTING would be significantly more valuable if the main is known good by Picasso. So there is a use case for curated assets. But it isn’t necessary for concert tickets. Or whatever. Those should be cheap and easy to issue without a third party.

[5:18 PM] kinkajou: And I agree with Mango, I think it would increase adoption of Ravencoin literally overnight. We are the best NFT platform out there yet cost remains a hindrance to some.

[5:18 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: That makes sense; getting a “brand” going

[5:18 PM] Vincent: the value of RVN (imho) is much more than an NFT factory, and this will not help as much as lead to protential trouble (someone mistake ADMIN being related to –ADMIN

[5:19 PM] Sevvy (with New Mod Smell): It only makes sense to have root level nft to me

[5:19 PM] Sevvy (with New Mod Smell): If it's technically feasible

[5:19 PM] Mango Farm: That’s why I feel good about this kinkajou I don’t think it detracts from the value of main assets otherwise I would not like it.

[5:20 PM] Mango Farm: I know this: if we had it in the code today it would be the most used asset type almost immediately

[5:20 PM] kinkajou: I agree.

[5:20 PM] kinkajou: I would be using it myself.

[5:20 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: It would be very spammed :p

[5:20 PM] Mango Farm: So be it

[5:20 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: But i dont think thats nessissarially a bad thing

[5:20 PM] kinkajou: So lots of RVN would get burned and miners would get fees.

[5:20 PM] Spicy: I was going to say what kind of strain does that put on the network having a bunch of s*** tokens moving everywhere?

[5:21 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Theoretically none more than rvn

[5:21 PM] Mango Farm: You mean like herpes?

[5:21 PM] kinkajou: rather have spam than empty blocks lol

[5:21 PM] kralverde 🇺🇸 {CULT OF JOE}: Since theres still tx fees

[5:21 PM] kinkajou: They are unique so there would only be one utxo per asset in any given block

[5:21 PM] Mango Farm: Not pushing just wanted to raise it I think it’s worth considering.

[5:21 PM] kinkajou: network strain should be minimal if anything

[5:21 PM] Vincent: just remember that everyone approved the potential spam issue when used against the burn rate discussion (just saying…)

[5:22 PM] kinkajou: I don't think spam could persist very long at 10rvn burn + tx fee per use

[5:23 PM] Mango Farm: The issue with the burn rate is that it goes to the fundamental economics and practically speaking getting consensus to do that change is unlikely. But we still have the issue you raise – expensive assets and use cases – and this would address that without throwing the baby out with the bath water in terms of community consensus.

[5:23 PM] Sevvy (with New Mod Smell): Blocks are empty. We should be so lucky to have spam

[5:23 PM] Vincent: same applies to the burn rate

[5:23 PM] Mango Farm: The burn rate discussion has been raging for 3 years. NFTs are being made now.

[5:24 PM] kinkajou: Right but this is adding something new and not changing an existing feature. It's also twice the cost of what is (in your opinion) the already too expensive uniques.

[5:24 PM] Mango Farm: Agree with this you can spam with uniques under a main cheaper. If someone wants to spam they will.

[5:24 PM] Vincent: well, i feel the fundamental economics are very inpirtant… bit we can avoid this tangent here… just wanted to point out how many of the agruments against my position are never a concern on other suggestions

[5:25 PM] Mango Farm: Definitely but my point is changing fundamental economics is a different issue than the practical issue of a new asset type to suit an existing use case.

[5:26 PM] Mango Farm: The former is a lot more serious to a lot more people.

[5:26 PM] kinkajou: Yes, notice how Mango received exactly 0 threats to his health for his proposal :rofl:

[5:26 PM] Vincent: a lot more people who aren't building companies… they are name squating [mostly]

[5:27 PM] Mango Farm: I didn’t want to monopolize the convo on this issue. Let’s keep discussing. Over time it may be something people find if interest. If not, it drops for me.

[5:27 PM] Vincent: mango is skilled at being switzerland… my life required a lot more hard love… :sunglasses:

[5:27 PM] kinkajou: name squatting wouldnt really be an issue here since they are unique and non-reissuable. this also likely wouldnt be used by business owners so much as it would be used by individual users.

[5:28 PM] Mango Farm: Not really I just like to find solutions to problems :rofl:

[5:28 PM] Vincent: so who then, economically, are against it if not the name squaters… how many businesses that you know of…?

[5:29 PM] kinkajou: I think businesses that planned to sell asset creation services may be against this.

[5:29 PM] kinkajou: Though Rikki said he is not opposed.

[5:29 PM] Vincent: so do i…i had to fire western medicine to solve qudriplegia… i learn a lot of people got in my way… and so i learned to trust very well my problem solving skills (but not switzerland skills)

[5:30 PM] Vincent: yes, than who, of the admin assets created already (burned 500 rvn $15) are gona be upset if we change the economics….?

[5:31 PM] Vincent: other than the name squaters here?

[5:31 PM] kinkajou: We aren't changing existing economics, we are adding new ones.

[5:31 PM] Vincent: we are conversing on what mango said earlier

[5:31 PM] Mango Farm: I plan to sell asset creation services (and have done it for over a year). The question for me is what’s best for RVN not me.

[5:31 PM] kinkajou: It would still be cheaper to issue uniques attached to a main.

[5:31 PM] kinkajou: So anyone issuing in bulk would likely opt for this.

[5:31 PM] Vincent: whats best for RVN is your business becoming ahuge success

[5:32 PM] Vincent: Mango Farm

[5:32 PM] Mango Farm: :rofl:

[5:32 PM] JustaResearcher: Don’t you think changing the burn rate has an affect on economics of the chain? It’s literally a deflation tool for holders that’s part of what draws me to raven (scarcity)

[5:32 PM] kinkajou: hes not wrong

[5:32 PM] Vincent: and cheap assets would allow many artist to take the chance

[5:33 PM] kinkajou: This would lower the cost from 505RVN to 10RVN (or something). Many more users/artists would be able to utilize RVN.

[5:33 PM] Tron: If someone buys the NFT root asset, they can charge 6 RVN to mint and send unique assets to an address and make a profit. NFT#WhateverYouWant

[5:33 PM] Mango Farm: Absolutely

[5:34 PM] Mango Farm: But the artist has to go through that service instead of minting their own. There is value to having art sold by sothetby’s but not necessarily at the cost of artists who don’t want to selling at a flea market or on the street corner.

[5:35 PM] Vincent: I always go to the garage band becoming the next U2… running their business on RVN…

U2/ALBIMS/SONGS

U2/TOURS/CITY/DATES/SEATS

U2/MERCH/ALBUMART

[5:35 PM] Vincent: so true and a 20% markup… but only 1 biz model

[5:36 PM] Mango Farm: But to trusted issuers and service providers this model would still work. PICASSO#PAINTING is known as the real deal while —PICASSOPAINTING is probably a joke. People would pay for the main asset provenance, where relevant.

[5:36 PM] Vincent: i will repeat… that in my opinion. the brilliance of RVN is the entire biz structure can be built with the asset classes, MUCH more than the NFT creation

[5:36 PM] Mango Farm: Like a curated painting

[5:37 PM] kinkajou: I think it would be the difference for a lot of artists downloading Core and using it right away, vs getting discouraged due to high barrier to entry.

Some users may not be aware of the different asset types, and might not even know to look for tokenizaton services that only cost 5-6RVN.

[5:37 PM] Mango Farm: I own the N.F.T#WHATEVER root asset but still it would be good for regular artists to mint their own if they don’t care to use a curated service.

[5:38 PM] Vincent: and a general rule of biz is you need a 200% markup to succeed… so the unique should cost 15RVN for a subcontractor

[5:38 PM] kinkajou: Even non-artists. It's a lot easier to justify trying out new technology if it only costs $1 than if it cost $50.

[5:39 PM] kinkajou: It would be akin to buying an app on the app store.

[5:39 PM] Mango Farm: Say you want to make a birthday card NFT for your wife. $50 or 50 cents.

[5:39 PM] Vincent: you're supporting my burn campaign if you ever want to see RVN moon

[5:39 PM] Tron: Agreed, but most users don't currently know that Ravencoin NFTs are an alternative to the much more expensive ERC-721 smart contract.

[5:40 PM] Tron: It cost about $75 to mint an ERC-721 (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ethdev/comments/loq4qs/how_much_does_it_cost_to_mint_erc721_tokens/)

[5:40 PM] kinkajou: It's not just us and Ethereum anymore, though. There are many different NFT smart contract platforms. BSC, SOL, XTZ, ADA…

[5:40 PM] kinkajou: We are not priced competitively with all of them.

[5:40 PM] Vincent: and what happens when competition comes in when it cost $75 conversion on RVN

[5:40 PM] Tron: That is more than minting a root token, and 10 NFTs.

[5:40 PM] Vincent: and we are forgetting the rest of the world economics

[5:41 PM] Mango Farm: https://mangofarmassets.com/viewer.testnet/BIRTHDAY_NFT

[5:41 PM] Vincent: yes, competition… another reason for the burn rate conversion concerns

[5:41 PM] Mango Farm: I wouldn’t want to have to go to hallmark to make that

[5:42 PM] Vincent: or have a color printer…. :yum:

[5:42 PM] Mango Farm: Ha!

[5:42 PM] kinkajou: Again, let's not conflate the two issues here. We should be able to discuss new proposals without circling back to old ones.

[5:42 PM] kinkajou: If we keep doing this we will never move forward.

[5:43 PM] Vincent: other NFT coins will be having FREE, on chain NFTs… not sure we need this to be a major ficus

[5:43 PM] Vincent: focus

[5:43 PM] kinkajou: They are not mutually exclusive ideas.

[5:44 PM] kinkajou: And while other chains may now be cheaper, Ravencoin still leads in UX/ease of use.

[5:44 PM] Vincent: agree…we spent a lot of time on the topic the other night… that said, when problem solving, i believe the forest view is importANT

[5:44 PM] Mango Farm: I didn’t mean to open a can of worms. Let it percolate. Personally I’m not pushing but I do think it would get a ton of use almost right away. And wouldn’t undercut the value or benefits of main assets. At least as I see it.

[5:44 PM] Vincent: always good to have these convos

[5:44 PM] Mango Farm: Agree

[5:45 PM] Mango Farm: But for today I think it’s a dead horse

[5:45 PM] Vincent: yes…back to the BTC 10k comits… should therebe a taks force finding the important ones… including segwit…?

[5:46 PM] kinkajou: Probably a good idea. It may be best just to do it all in one go, though. Rather than picking and choosing.

[5:46 PM] kinkajou: Don't want to leave out some stuff and then figure out later you actually wanted/needed it.

[5:47 PM] Vincent: over my head… but seems to make sense

[5:47 PM] kinkajou: well, like right now we have tiny bits of segwit left in the code – but none of the important stuff :slight_smile:

[5:48 PM] Vincent: seems weird everyone goes silent on this topic haha

[5:49 PM] kinkajou: Maybe we should figure out a way to raise funds for it then

[5:49 PM] Vincent: ugh

[5:49 PM] Vincent: map out a plan first (imo)

[5:50 PM] Vincent: does the foundation see it as important piece of the puzzle..?

[5:50 PM] Mango Farm: I’ll leave that to Tron. I don’t need segwit or taproot for anything I do.

[5:51 PM] Tron: There are two questions here. The first, and most important, is how important is the capability. Segwit doesn't add anything valuable unless there is also going to be a lightning layer. It helps with scaling (up to 2x) but that isn't currently an issue. It could be in the future. The second question is the funding for development, which has several options. One that was proposed earlier and largely rejected was to use part of the block reward. The other options are donations, or volunteer development.

[5:51 PM] kinkajou: Tx malleability will also need fixing.

[5:52 PM] Vincent: what is involve for segwit and lightning…?

[5:52 PM] Mango Farm: They both (segwit and taproot) seem like solutions to problems RVN doesn’t have.

[5:52 PM] Tron: Tx malleability can be fixed without segwit.

[5:52 PM] Tron: You just have to tighten the rules on a signature formats.

[5:53 PM] kinkajou: I think it's a losing strategy to put scalability on the back-burner when it is the largest issue facing decentralized cryptocurrencies today. Sure, blocks are empty right now – but none of us are here because we think they will remain empty forever.

[5:53 PM] Tron: Lightning doesn't need segwit. Lightning needs guaranteed signatures.

[5:53 PM] Vincent: (shameless self promoting not intended)… i hope to have my prototype live befire yr end… it will expose what i see as the brilliance of RVn and also show a scalable concern…. it may help you all see where my thoughts come from and why this all concerns me

[5:55 PM] Mango Farm: I agree kinkajou but every RVN asset currently sits on a hot wallet so addressing scaling seems to me like the cart before the horse. Imagine putting a million dollar NFT on a hot wallet – you have bigger concerns than how much it costs you to send it in 3 years.

[5:55 PM] Tron: Like Bitcoin, Ravencoin would benefit from a fee market. Not an issue today, but will become more important as we have a few more halvenings.

[5:56 PM] Vincent: in a dev meeting, aren't we planning for tomoorow..?

[5:57 PM] kinkajou: Well I also don't see RVN as just an NFT/stock chain. We have lots of web3 potential. For example, the trustless authorization/authentication we've discussed previously. I'm fine if we want to push SegWit back a bit, but I don't like to entertain the idea that Ravencoin blocks will remain empty indefinitely.

[5:57 PM] Tron: Yep, planning for 2032 as block reward shrinks.

[5:57 PM] Mango Farm: Same page

[5:57 PM] kinkajou: And if we're going to continue delaying upgrades that do have value, whether or not that value is immediately apparent, we should work on something else instead.

[5:59 PM] Vincent: yeah,… let's wait till its a problem is not a good methid imo

[5:59 PM] kinkajou: I know we are a "slow and steady" chain as opposed to a "move fast and break things" project, but we have to keep moving. I don't want development to stall after the great year we've had. We should continue to build off our momentum.

[6:00 PM] Mango Farm: Segwit was really just an offshoot of the block size debate though. Aside from one way to address transaction malleability I don’t know that it is a superior solution to address block size and throughput, but others would be better to gauge that than me.

[6:00 PM] Vincent: (btw mango, liked the new wallet, played a lil)

[6:00 PM] Mango Farm: Ethereum is jammed up for other reasons

[6:02 PM] Vincent: dont know much abou tit but we can stay slow and steady but Solona came out of nowhere is may be putting us to shame in the NFT world.

[6:02 PM] kinkajou: We will never have to worry about those reasons without smart contracts, though.

And it is more then just scalability – it's about being able to share resources with Bitcoin since they receive the equivalent of billions of dollars annually for R&D.

[6:02 PM] Vincent: you werent supposed to be taged on that mango

[6:02 PM] Mango Farm: It also could be said that it breaks the chain of signatures (at least for nodes that don’t retain the witness)

[6:03 PM] Mango Farm: Yes this is what I see as the main benefit eventually all the BTC tools are going to leave the old transaction structure, scripting and signatures behind.

[6:05 PM] kinkajou: I think it's fair to speculate that every major technological upgrade to BTC from now on will likely depend on SegWit in one way or another.

[6:06 PM] Mango Farm: Taproot was a pretty major change too. P2TR and MAST etc.

[6:06 PM] Vincent: does taproot need segwit..?

[6:07 PM] Mango Farm: I don’t have the answer to whether it must but I believe it does.

[6:07 PM] Vincent: seems to my naiveness that the benefits of segwit are worth putting time into it

[6:09 PM] Mango Farm: I don’t know enough about it to have an informed view. I’m learning now.

[6:09 PM] Mango Farm: (Taproot)

[6:10 PM] kinkajou: If not SegWit then we should seriously consider Mango's proposal for new unique assets. Again I am fine if a decision is made not to prioritize SegWit at the current moment but if that's the case then it should be tabled in favor of something else that will benefit RVN even more.

[6:11 PM] Vincent: i'm overdue for a shower and dinner… enjoy the weekend

[6:11 PM] Mango Farm: It was really jeroz’s proposal with a twist

[6:11 PM] Mango Farm: Have a great weekend everyone I have to go too. Lively and informative discussion this week. Thanks for that. This makes my week.

[6:21 PM] Tron: Thanks to everyone for participating. I'll close the channel.