Topic: [GRIN] - Algorithme MimbleWimble (Read 1185 times)

ANNOUNCEMENT: Grin v2.0.0 Node + Wallet Released: @Yeastplume wrote: Summary Grin v2.0.0 and Grin-wallet v2.0.0, which include support for the upcoming hard fork, have been released. Changes in these releases have been… http://grin.mw/R7bzHx  #Announcements via grin-forum $GRIN

Grin v2.0.0 Node + Wallet Released
Summary Grin v2.0.0 and Grin-wallet v2.0.0, which include support for the upcoming hard fork, have been released. Changes in these releases have been almost entirely focused on hard fork support and...

grin-forum.org

Désolé je prendrais pas le temps de faire une réponse complète.

Le % des rewards fondateur ne me dérange pas, c'est leur modèle économique alors oui effectivement sur un cycle d'inflation de ce type, ça va leur faire de belles réserves mais c'est le jeu. Pour l'instant y a rien à dire sur leur posture, et  leur façon de gérer le projet. Ca me semble très fiable pour le moment. Et leur déférence envers Grin montre également l'intelligence de leur positionnement.

Ensuite l'inflation est pas infinie ce qui est un vrai + d'un point de vue spéculatif moyen/long terme. Même si au début l'inflation est plus importante que Beam

Il y a également un positionnement très compliant vis à vis des autorité avec la possibilité de vérifier les transactions. c'est un choix. On aime ou on aime pas c'est une différenciation entre les deux projets.

Donc je prends du Beam et du Grin. Tranquillement, mais mes analyses, notamment sur le minage, montrent que les deux génèrent beaucoup d'intérêt de la part de l'écosystème économique minier, même si il est vrai, dans l'absolue, avec plus de préférence pour le Grin. Mais l'inflation de Grin a un tel niveau me dérange, en tant que spéculateur je parle. Même si rien n'empêche qu'il fasse un pump de taré sur le court/moyen terme

Un peu de nuances
Voilà les points qui me chagrine le ++ chez BEAM

- le % de BEAM qu'ils prenne sur chaque blockreward pendant 5a
- qui dis Investisseur dis attente de retour sur investissement ( RAF du projet en général juste opportunité à faire cash )
- à cause de ces memes Investisseur ils ont du lancé le mainnet dans la précipitation avec pas mal de fails critique sur leur wallet


90% GRIN , 10% BEAM c'est mieux lol

Un peu simpliste ton raisonnement quand même... Faut mettre de la nuance. Beam et Grin sont 2 projets très différents pour plein de raisons, et les deux sont intéressants à différents titres. C'est pas une news comme ça qui va me faire dévier de mon intérêt pour Beam. Par contre comme on le sait tous, oui Grin a tapé dans l'oeil des BTC maximalist. Ca montre juste l'intérêt des investisseurs pour Grin mais ça n'a aucune incidence sur ce que je pense de Beam

Non effet, si tu crois a Beam il n'y a pas de raison de changer de navire.
Cependant, si j'etais toi, je ferais 75% Beam et 25% Grin en "holding" mimblewimble

Grin peut reserver de belle surprises. Beam aussi.

Non effet, si tu crois a Beam il n'y a pas de raison de changer de navire.
Cependant, si j'etais toi, je ferais 75% Beam et 25% Grin en "holding" mimblewimble

Grin peut reserver de belle surprises. Beam aussi.

Il y a t'il une paid campagne de signature Beam ?

Un peu simpliste ton raisonnement quand même... Faut mettre de la nuance. Beam et Grin sont 2 projets très différents pour plein de raisons, et les deux sont intéressants à différents titres. C'est pas une news comme ça qui va me faire dévier de mon intérêt pour Beam. Par contre comme on le sait tous, oui Grin a tapé dans l'oeil des BTC maximalist. Ca montre juste l'intérêt des investisseurs pour Grin mais ça n'a aucune incidence sur ce que je pense de Beam

Perso quand je vois ce genre de news sur GRIN
et ben je me dis BEAM ouais mais nan ça ne m'interesse pas du tout

et bien vu #cestmoi pour toutes les infos au sujet de GRIN

-- snip

Perso quand je vois ce genre de news sur GRIN
et ben je me dis BEAM ouais mais nan ça ne m'interesse pas du tout

et bien vu #cestmoi pour toutes les infos au sujet de GRIN

Avez vous passer la nouvelle sur coindesk ??

https://www.coindesk.com/privacy-cryptocurrency-grin-receives-mysterious-300k-bitcoin-donation

GRIN viens de recevoir un don de 50BTC

Cela va permettre de fonder le project pour plus de 6 mois

Mais ce qui est extraordinaire c'est que c'est des coins "mine" et jamais depense !

qu'est ce que c'est que ca ?

Et bien, il y a un very very very early adopter qui vient de depenser 50 BTC qu'il a solo mine le 25 novembre 2010

b0d701da413083e89f00f824a8300387ded7671ca3ca967811c758019cfaf3ba
2010-11-25 08:16:44
No Inputs (Newly Generated Coins)      18FufdutXggR2EgBuu6xRvL15kmpaPzfTQ 50 BTC

Donc le gars, il a des BTC qui ont presque 9 ans et qu'il a jamais touche.

---

address BTC Grin visible ici :
https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin-pm/blob/master/financials/reports/funding_transparency_2019Q1.md
bc1qdgs8vkpzr256qjlzlfht72z3mhcrdrt6wj2rfjw39j8us24gz8uq78qj65
Les 50 BTC a un moment c'etait 1 milions USD

Cela montre deux ou trois choses :
1) pas surprenant beaucoup de early adopter croient en la technologie BTC  tellement qu'ils ne veulent pas vendre
2) GRIN est clairement un projet qui a tappe dans l'oeil de BTC early adopter (c'est aussi un coin apprecie par Theymos).


J'aimerais bien savoir qui est le genereux donateur

Meeting Notes: Governance, Mar 12 2019
Governance meeting held Mar 12 2019 @ 3PM UTC in grin/Lobby on Gitter, full chat transcript here. Meeting lasted ~ 120 min.

Notes are truncated, and conversations sorted based on topic and not always chronological. Quotes are edited for brevity and clarity, and not always exact.

Community attendance:

antiochp
catheryne_n_twitter
crazymonkyyy
davidburkett
garyyu
hashmap
ignopeverell
jaspervdm
kargakis
kbielecki__twitter
lehnberg
nass769_twitter
rw258906
yeastplume
(apologies if I missed someone - open a PR or contact @lehnberg to add)

Agenda points & Actions
1. Agenda review
Proposed agenda accepted.

2. Action point follow ups from previous meetings
2.1 Fund spending transparency
@lehnberg created income and spending logs, under grin-pm/financials.

If you notice that there’s a donation that’s not tracked by income_log.csv, feel free to open a PR for it!
This powers hall of fame section by @nijynot.
@hashmap raised a good question about whether @yeastplume's campaigns should be included in income and spendings. @yeastplume's funding has been handled by him directly, and if we include it under income, it would create an imbalance if we also don't include it under spending.

We see no reason to change how it's been handled so far.
But at the same time, donations to @yeastplume campaigns should also be counted for inclusion to Hall of Fame. But it's not income, tracked in income_log.csv
Decision: Move out yeastplume funding from income_log
move any references of yeastplume funding campaigns out from income_log, and into a new csv, that tracks funding that is not project income but that still should count for hall of fame.
update Hall of Fame to read data from this csv as well.
2.2 @antiochp funding
Has not been processed yet, on @antiochp's own request.

antiochp: I'm able to announce that I have secured funding for (at least) 3 months from an external company (unable to say who just yet, but working on this). They're funding me to continue to work full time on Grin - with some work exploring Confidential Assets (mainly R&D initially).

3. Security audits
catheryne_n_twitter: We have an executed contract and payment. No update from them yet, but their draft report is due 4/20.
4. CVE-2019-9195
4.1 Network status
ignopeverell:: Still many that have yet to upgrade. I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that new installs are what matter the most for this vulnerability, but a faster upgrade cycle would be nicer. In about 4 months, everyone will have to upgrade regardless. Based on my seed I'd say about 50% are running v1.0.2.

4.2 What went well
ignopeverell: I think the disclosure process went well, we were able to process it quickly, produce a fix, review and include it discreetly without too much problem. The fact that it was rather localized made that simpler as well. I think the upgrades themselves could be improved obviously, and perhaps communication around the waiting period, to track who has updated (or hasn't).

lehnberg: my call outs for what went well:

Our disclosure process worked.
We had a chance to prepare for the disclosure, and were ready to move on a fix immediately.
A first draft fix was ready in <24h

The fix was patched to master in <72h
4.3 What could be improved
lehnberg:
Our internal processes could be better defined in advance, i.e. what happens from the point of receiving a vulnerability and onwards. This is about what we do internally once we have this issue. how do we work, what’s our approaches, etc.
Our official policies about how to treat vulnerabilities might make sense to be published and announced in advance. So that our actions do not come as surprises to the community and wider ecosystem. This is more about what our philosophy is about vulnerabilities, to be shared externally. What we do, how we do it, do we disclose to others, when etc.
I think in the end, judging from the what seems to be a lack of backlash from the community, we didn’t handle it horribly. But it would be good to have this firmed up better in advance, to reduce the risk of mistakes.
4.4 Questions
Should we add another backup contact for disclosure?
Seems like having a third contact would make a lot of sense.
Should we have an isolated small group working on a fix as we had or treat all core devs as the task force?
lehnberg: This time we took a compartmentalized approach. Only those who needed to know, i.e. myself (receiving it initially) and then the devs that actually were working/testing knew what the vulnerability was.
ignopeverell: I think it was the right approach, and I think we need to explain to those who aren't working directly on the vulnerability that it's not a trust problem.
yeastplume: If it's established policy it should help with that. Also, the others can be told there is an issue and severity without going into detail.
antiochp: I think we should agree on the compartmentalized approach and define it in the response docs, just so there is no confusion around how it works next time. I think the concern was more that we were making decisions on the fly.
How do we handle disclosure to Grin forks?
yeastplume: Not all forks are equal, because we don't necessarily trust any and all fork maintainers to behave responsibly with the info. Perhaps tiers of when we inform people?
How do we handle disclosure to other Mimblewimble projects?
Decision: Review our security vulnerability process
Write a forum post outlining above (and other) questions. Solicit feedback and comments from the community.
Distill resulting discussion into a wiki document to be discuss in a governance meeting.
Adopt any changes into security policies in a future governance meeting.
Update our policy as required.

5. Treasury management
5.1 Hedging/currency fluctuations
General discussion around hedging and having a strategy to exchange to different crypto to avoid currency fluctuation risks.
garyyu: The Grin Dev Fund is not a purpose for “keeping”, it’s for spending.
yeastplume: Yes, that is generally the plan, but we don't have all developers lined up for the next year, and we don't have anything like the stability to hire developers on expected cash flows. So the cash will have to accrue until such time as it can be doled out.
lehnberg: I could see a rationale for why currency hedging between say BTC/ETH/GRIN would make sense, but it's also a headache.
antiochp: Hedging across those gets us into "taxable events" territory though.
ignopeverell: I don't think we can convert without headaches, and stand more chance to Do It Wrong. So this discussion is in a way moot. Only way we can balance is through spending. So for example, if an entity accepts zcash, and we want to get rid of them, then we can spend that first. I think generally we want some grins and some BTCs and that we're likely to get a regular trickle of the former. But we can decide on a case by case basis on spending too.
nass769_twitter: With the amsterdam event on the 26th, we made the decision that the sponsorship donations will stay in the currency of the specific donation, so no one can accuse somebody else of making the ‘wrong’ decision to convert to another currency. Yes there is a potential down risk by just holding, but at least no risk of bad actions. In the meanwhile things that have to be paid are converted BTC>EUR, at the moment of the transaction.
Decision: Treasury management
No conversions for the purpose of hedging. The only way we manage funds is by choosing which funds we spend from, and when. The general position is that we prefer to hold grins and BTC mainly.

We control the currency in which we receive donations from by choosing whether to add support for it or not.

5.2 ETH donation address
Already been tracked for a while: https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin-pm/issues/14

Action on @ignopeverell to figure out how to set up a multi-sig for ETH.

5.3 Decision: Updating income spending logs
Decision to update logs through PRs with reviews as we make changes.

5.4 Decision: Reporting
Quarterly reporting, with 2019Q1 report due in April.

Contents:

Here’s what was received this period.
Here’s what we spent this period.
Here’s what we have left.

6. Promotion of other projects
No real progress beyond the leaderboard / hall of fame on Friends of Grin.

ignopeverell: I would still like to find a way to reward companies that employ grin developers.

7. Gary Yuu proposal to hire developers
continuation from last meeting

Relevant update from Ignotus.
Decision: Funding for Ignotus Peverell
The meeting unanimously decided to fund Ignotus Peverell for a period of 3 months at the going rate of USD 10k/month.

8. Risk management
lehnberg: On freeze until there’s a vision/mission established. * rw258906: It doesn't make sense to have risk management if we can't define what's at risk. * ignopeverell: I think it's good to have done what we've done, but perhaps we're not entirely ready for the next step in formalisation.

9. Other questions
None

Meeting adjourned.

Pas de wallet Mac pour l'instant?

As discussed in yesterday’s development meeting, we’re doing beta releases of 1.1.0 for community testing and feedback before doing the actual releases.

Major additions are:

Split wallet into separate component
Windows 10 Support
Dandelion ++ Implementation
Initial version of wallet V2 API
Builds of the 1.1.0 Beta 1 are now available here (unfortunately Windows needs to be built separately due to Travis CI issues):

Server/Node/Whatever you want to call it:

Grin Server 1.1.0-beta.1 - Linux + MacOS 12

Grin Server 1.1.0-beta.1 - Windows 10 23

Wallet:

Grin Wallet 1.1.0-beta.1 - Linux + MacOS 15

Grin Wallet 1.1.0-beta.1 - Windows 10 61

Also, the V2 Wallet API has full rustdoc documentation, complete with working JSON-RPC examples. The docs for the wallet API can be found at:

https://docs.rs/grin_wallet_api/1.1.0-beta.1/grin_wallet_api/ 21

It would be great to see as many people as possible give these a try, especially wallet developers for feedback on the new V2 API. Keep in mind that the focus on this release was getting the infrastructure for the V2 API in place, so there aren’t currently a huge number of additions from the existing V1 REST API (plenty to come in future releases).

Other things worth focusing on:

Upgrade experience
Interaction between current versions and earlier versions of wallet and server (1.1.0 wallet can still send to older wallets with the -v flag in the send command
Thanks, and enjoy!

Long-time Grin coder “Ignotus Peverell” will receive financial support to work on the cryptocurrency, a move that makes him the nascent project’s third paid team member.

In a weekly governance meeting Tuesday, developers voted to fund Peverell for his work on Grin with roughly $10,000 per month. With 4,919,040 GRIN tokens in circulation, according to CoinMarketCap, the estimated market capitalization of the cryptocurrency is well over $13 million.

Grin, being a relatively new blockchain, went live in mid-January in a bid to implement the privacy-enhancing protocol “MimbleWimble,” designed to obfuscate transaction details such as amount and account addresses. Named after a tongue-tying curse in J.K. Rowling’s best-selling Harry Potter books, the name Ignotus Peverell itself is a pseudonym that references a character within the series.

In the context of the Grin community, Peverell was one of the original creators of the Grin project who back in 2016 started the first implementation of the mimblewimble protocol on GitHub.

A user by the name of “Antioch Peverell” – another Harry Potter character reference – was similarly voted up by the community in late February. Before this, user “Yeastplume” was the sole full-time funded Grin developer.

Yeastplume told CoinDesk:

“There’s no [official] roles. We just continue to work on what we see fit, which so far seems to be working okay.”

Emphasizing in a public Gitter channel that being funded for Grin development work was “risky employment,” Yeastplume later characterized the financial support as more akin to donations.

Audit ahead
Tuesday’s governance meeting also confirmed the “contract and payment” of security auditing firm Coinspect.

Having decided to conduct a third-party review of Grin’s “cryptographic and consensus-critical code,” community members unanimously voted to employ Coinspect over other auditors such as Quarkslab and NCC last month.

Now, having paid a fee up-front to the company of roughly $17,000, Grin community members expect a draft report by April 20. “It’s going to come quickly. They’ve also already produced one excellent vulnerability report,” stated Ignotus Peverell.

As stated on a Github, the estimated cost of the audit is roughly $80,000.

Funds are sourced from the “Grin General Fund,” which back in December of last year raised 17.28 BTC, with an estimated worth at press time of $66,500 specifically for the purposes of this security audit.

Grin symbol via CoinDesk archives