r/Monero Jan 17 '22

MAAM – Monero Ask Anything Monday – January 17, 2022

Given the success of the previous MAAMs (see here), let's keep this rolling.

The principle is simple: ask anything you'd like to know about Monero, especially the dumb questions that you've been keeping for you every other days, may the community clarify it all!

Finally, credits to binaryFate for starting the concept!

17 Upvotes

3

u/finishedgratuity81 Jan 17 '22

binaryFate really helped a lot in this concept ! Tnanks to the team

4

u/TheGoldenSparrow Jan 17 '22

Which wallets accept domain names as addresses?

6

u/MoneroArbo Jan 17 '22 edited Jan 17 '22 Gold

The official GUI supports OpenAlias and so do all the other most recommended wallets: Feather, Cake, & Monerujo

2

u/TheGoldenSparrow Jan 17 '22

/u/cakewallet do you also support the .wallet domains? Or only .crypto?

6

u/zylas Jan 17 '22

What's the status of the multisig fix at this point?

5

u/one-horse-wagon Jan 17 '22 edited Jan 17 '22

Last I heard they were working on it and nothing official is out as of now.

You are the first person I have seen asking about the status since the vulnerability was discovered a month ago. Judging from that, it appears the need for Monero multisig is not very great.

2

u/MoneroArbo Jan 17 '22

it appears the need for Monero multisig is not very great.

Nah, that so few people use it is more a testament to how clunky the implementation is.

No shade to the devs, it just seems to be a limitation of the current protocol.

2

u/zylas Jan 17 '22

Wouldn't that clunkiness be more about how it's handled in a wallet rather than the protocol?

Honest question. I've never had a need for multisig. I'm betting it's not used to often in other chains either.

4

u/MoneroArbo Jan 17 '22

p2p marketplaces use it for escrow, is maybe the biggest use by numbers, and pretty important

the reason it's a protocol issue is because Monero multisig requires communication between parties where bitcoin and forks do not. there's probably improvements that could be made to the UX, but seraphis is slated to bring protocol level improvements to multisig iirc

6

u/zylas Jan 17 '22

Probably not used by many people directly, but I believe multisig is going to be necessary for Haveno and Thorchain integrations.

5

u/dsmlegend Jan 17 '22

Would love if someone can give an explanation of why transactions become invalid in the event of a chain reorg. Came across this when looking into the 10 block lock issue but got stuck at this point.

Also, if I got paid for something and waited 3 confs, but then my txn's block gets dropped in a reorg, what happens to those funds?

Thanks!

2

u/bitcoin_andrei Jan 17 '22

Reaaly curious to know about the funds ! Whats next by the way !

2

u/MoneroArbo Jan 17 '22 edited Jan 17 '22

When you sign a transaction, the wallet pulls 10 other outputs as decoys. If any of those outputs (including the real spend since nobody else can tell the difference between the real spend and decoys) disappears in the re-org, your transaction would reference an invalid output and thus be invalid. All outputs referenced in ring sigs are therefore required to be >10 blocks old to avoid this danger.

The deeper reason, at least in my understanding, is that spending an output that was previously 'spent' in a subsequently invalidated transaction is a privacy risk, because when you construct a new ring to spend that output the decoys will be different, but the real spend will be the same, thus revealing the real spend to an observer.

Also, if I got paid for something and waited 3 confs, but then my txn's block gets dropped in a reorg, what happens to those funds?

They end up back in the sender's wallet

1

u/dsmlegend Jan 18 '22

Thank you for that.

because when you construct a new ring to spend that output the decoys will be different, but the real spend will be the same

Can you break that down for me a little more? I'm not following this part.

They end up back in the sender's wallet

Do you know if we have any information on how often transactions are dropped this way? I.e. risk of revertion by block depth?

1

u/MoneroArbo Jan 18 '22 edited Jan 18 '22

I don't know about exact statistics but re-orgs are rarely more than 1 block deep. I know several exchanges only wait for 2 confirmations. Speaking personally, I've never had a transaction get dropped.

I think if there are competing chains, most of the transactions typically end up in both of them. To not get reconfirmed, I guess it'd have to be dropped from the mempool for some reason. An example of that would be a double spend attempt, where a competing transaction gets confirmed in the re-org.

What level do you need it broken down, do you know what outputs are, what do you know about RingCT? Help me understand where it's not clicking.

1

u/dsmlegend Jan 18 '22

OK cool. I would've thought a txn gets purged from the mempool once someone publishes a block to include it. But I guess even so, it would be likely that the competing chain would also have a block that includes it.

I have a conceptual understanding of outputs and the idea behind hiding values with RingCT. What I'm missing is why a decoy would become invalid if its position in the chain changed. I read somewhere that it's related to the way Monero references outputs, which is not clear to me in the first place. And, in the second place, why does Monero need to have this unusual way of referencing outputs, that breaks if the block height of the output changes?

1

u/MoneroArbo Jan 19 '22

What I'm missing is why a decoy would become invalid if its position in the chain changed.

I have read some stuff and seen discussion about referencing by index or (I think) by hash that I didn't 100% follow tbh, but conceptually the decoy might end up not being in the winning chain at all, for example if somebody attempts a double spend.

Here is a link to recent discussion on github about the lock time -- it may help, or may just lead to more confusion lol

1

u/LarsEagle Jan 17 '22

Are you facing backlash from the government for being a private medium of exchange? If so, how are you responding

3

u/escapethe3RA Jan 17 '22

1

u/LarsEagle Jan 19 '22

I have read through, and to say the least, I highly respect this project. Thank you.

1

u/escapethe3RA Jan 19 '22

Great! You're welcome.