Thanks Kewbit. I hope this is a misunderstanding that can be resolved. That being said, it’s unlikely many people will beta test a binary without source code, especially if the main reason to use Haveno is to avoid KYC. IMO, it’s probably best to address the drama and move on. Since you’re likely gun shy about speaking out, it’s perhaps best to contact a diplomatic friend that can help express your side and why you don’t feel comfortable releasing the code and what would it take to do it.

IMO, there would only be two reasons why you’ve sent out a follow up post here: (1) You were sincere but made some bad judgements (e.g. timelines, amount of work, how much XMR you needed, “life got in the way”, overreactions that cascaded, the code is uglier than you thought and wanted to clean it up, etc) and you hope there’s some way forward, (2) You’re hoping to make more money either through binary back doors or selling data or convincing people to fund the rest of the project outside of CSS so you can scam them.

I haven’t decided which conclusion to make. At the beginning of the last crypto crash most people were angry at the original Haveno team for halting work when the price of XMR crashed with many calling that team scammers. They made a poor judgement on pricing and could have avoided the drama if they priced their work in USD (paid with XMR). Of course, if XMR continued to go up they’d miss out on the USD gains, but fair is fair. Either you want security or risk. Choosing one and then complaining about not choosing the other isn’t fair. When they continued their work once the XMR price appreciated and released, all past accusations were forgotten (I know I did until tried to remember an example) and they were and still are appreciated for their hard work.

If you are sincerely #1 and are able to express yourself reasonably, there is a way back. If not, #2 will be the conclusion most people will make and releasing the binaries without source code will reinforce this conclusion.

I agree with Bobr. As someone who regularly keeps friendly relations between several parties who “know” they are “in the right” I can tell you that it’s unlikely the complete story is being told once emotions take over. When that happens truth takes a back seat to “being right”. From reading the logs, emotions were inflamed far too early with kewbit threatening to stop right at the beginning. You can’t lead a horse to water. At that point, the CSS should have dispassionally lay down the law without insult or consession and either negotiate an end to the CSS or negotiate new timelines and expectations.

My reading of that likely happened is this. Kewbit appears to have classic engineer delusions. Engineers naturally overestimate their abilities and underestimate the difficulties. Experienced engineers or well managed engineers know about this tendency and add buffers and contingencies “just in case”. Kewbit likely thought he could do more than he was able to in the time period, but “knows he is just needs to get over a minor difficulty to make up the time”. When he missed his deadlines, he became defensive and the emotions on both sides started there and escalated.

Could the drama been avoided? From the CSS side, yes. Calling Kewbit an exit scammer automatically ends any hope that can be resolved and brings needless drama. When the deadline was missed and attempts at negotiation (which are not likely show in the published logs) failed, the CSS should have been withdraw and a settlement should be made. At most, it should have been announced, “Due to on project completion disagreements, the CSS has been withdrawn. Anyone else that wishes to take over the CSS may apply with a plan.”

Isn’t possible to do it on RandomX? Yes but not on Monero since that’s not its purpose and it hurts anonymity (review the Mordinals reaction).

Why the F will you sell JPEGs with the Monero mascot that I can download off of Google images for free? Yes, it’s fugazi as is most of the “modern fine art” market.

That being said, NFTs are available on CEXes and there will be an easy XMR to this NFT atomic swap so it might be an on/off ramp for some people.

No but it’s a good thing for a few reasons (1) XMR really needs to focus on it’s primary mission. Blockchain based smart contracts make privacy harder. (2) There is no consensus on a good smart contract language is yet, especially for UTXOs so it’s best to wait until a standard emerges (note there are several challengers to EVMs that might yet replace it), (3) Once something is on the public blockchain, it’ll stay forever so it needs to be done right the first time so we need a mature smart contract standard (see previous point), (4) It can be handled by a parallel merge mined chain for added flexibility and experimentation so XMR might never need it, (5) the comining implementation of FCMPs has featurres that will make it easier to do, so any effort spent now will need to be thrown out. (6) Most common smart contracts like automatic payments and smart contracts and payment channels can be done by using time locked XMR and checkpoints (with clear roll back rules) and step signatures. These can be integrated into wallets to run in the background, so it might not even be necessary for most cases to hard code opcodes onto the main block chain. All you need to do is leave your phone on to handle the checkpoints. Atomic swaps and the “Monero Subscriptions Wallet” already prove this is possible. All that’s needed is a more full featured wallet extension library that handles all the typical smart contract cases (i.e. currently there are thousands of smart contracts out there…most are abandoned and only a handful are actually useful. We could implement those).

Given Monero’s anonymity and the media lock out, it would be hard to know how popular Monero is in Russia. Haveno isn’t the best measure of adoption. Perhaps Russians prefer swapping Monero for other easier to acquire crypto on Russia-agnostic DEXes? Remember also Russian citizens are masters of covert communications. Back when computer programs were on cassette tapes a common strategy was to embed programs and documents in the middle of extremely hard to listen to music like high volume death metal or MERZBOW Woodpecker #1. Any guard charged with finding illegal content would have to listen through hours of ear-bleeding and harsh music before they could detect that “something” was being hidden. Perhaps there’s an active trade in the underground market which the average citizen is a part of. Perhaps they have an active independent street exchange as is available in Argentina (from what I know, street vendors tend to give the best rates).

these sanctions are actually hurting the individual citizens more than the government to whom they should be targeted.

Of course. That’s the point. Sanctions rarely ever harm the leaders. Do you think 1000 times harsher sanctions would affect the North Korean dictator one bit? Sanctions are meant to cause so much civilian pain that the governments has no choice but to yield or risk revolution. Causing revolution in the enemy to weaken it is an extremely old and effective strategy to win without fighting. The US would not likely exist without the support of the French of the American revolution against the British. Of course, the french monarchy might still be around if it did not go bankrupt funding the American revolution, thus causing its own revolution, so this strategy has its dangers.

Perhaps, but there are at least 5 factions mentioned even in Roger Ver’s account. Project management is hard, especially for a research project (i.e. trying to build something that’s never been built before) and people dig in for the dumbest reasons. Usually, developers can hash out a compromise solution but when non-developers try to “help” like the Reddit moderator or the companies putting out the ad to pressure the core team to change, things can get very messy and factions solidify to the point where nothing moves forward. IMO, if developers were to just sit down together to resolve this, a new structure would have formed. Bitcoin Next Generation would contain all the advanced experimental changes such as those that eventually got into Etherium. Bitcoin Preview would contain all Bitcoin Next Generation which have a solid chance of being accepted into Bitcoin Core but need proving time. Finally Bitcoin Core would be the most conservative Bitcoin branch which would only contain changes from Bitcoin Preview. Yes, they would be 3 different coins but they would work towards being mutually compatible and would be able to satisfy all parties. If you want to see how well this would work, look at Debian which has the “Unstable, Testing, and Stable” branches. All three branches are in use. Note, “stable” is ossified (like Bitcoin Core). It’s old but it was proven.

You’re missing the point. The core devs were responsible for their implementation. A BDFL can delay changes indefinitely and add or remove controversial features. Satoshi did with some features that were re-added to BCH. According to Vitalik, ETH might never have existed if some of the changes Satoshi reverted were kept in. BTC was never set up as a reference platform and probably couldn’t have been without destroying via fragmentation hell. But even if it was, they would not need to fork off the reference since they are The Reference. You might not like the decision of the core team. Many Linux developers did not like that C++ was banned from the Linux kernel because it is not pure, only to have Rust be accepted despite being fundamentally a bigger difference to C than C++, but that’s the BDFL’s decision to make. If you don’t like it, you make a fork which is what BCH ultimately did and what many Linux forks continue to do. With 20/20 hindsight, BCH should have just maintained a separate fork (made in the most backwards compatible way so all BTC features were BCH features) and created a parallel Reddit Forum (perhaps call it something like Bitcoin Complete), but that would require a new BDFL which you might not end up agreeing with on other points. If such a fork was done early enough, Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Complete might have been forced to co-operate or come to an arrangement like “no new feature goes into Bitcoin Core unless it first goes into Bitcoin Complete and people are free to use either coin”.

Although I agree with much of what Roger Ver is saying, it can’t be denied that his criticisms are filled with the contradiction “It’s okay if we do it but not if you do it.” For instance, he says that having a Benevolent Dictator For Life like Satoshi is good but then criticises that Bitcoin Core for being a dictator that blocked his changes. You can’t have it both ways. Understandably, he’s trying to express that he wants Bitcoin to be like Linux with its BDFL but Linux works because the “Linux Core” under Linus is more a reference implementation than anything else and each version or fork of Linux does not have to be compatible with each other. But they don’t have to be. This can’t work for currency. Granted, Linux forks as of late have adopted unifying standards like Snap and Flatpak that span different distributions to bring unity in diversity but currency requires much more unity than this in order to work.

You do not need to fight governments. You just need to make them irrelevant. As much as possible, reduce your government dependance footprint.

I think you miss what the poster and I are trying to say. On LocalMonero and on Bisq2, you could purchase without deposit based solely on the reputation of the person. That is all the person was asking. I commented that if Haveno had a field in the seller information for private contact (e.g. simplex, signal, etc) the trade could be done outside of Haveno since other than listing the sellers and contact information, Haveno would provide no guarantees. That’s an acceptable risk for many people to start off - you just don’t risk too much on first contact. Unfortunately I’ve checked and , Haveno doesn’t provide this feature yet…IMO, it will as it incorporates Bisq2 features or at least adds a contact field in the seller information.

I installed Haveno-reto but haven’t used it yet. Is it not possible to contact the seller directly (without deposit)?

If so, then why not just contact the seller directly and handle it out of Haveno? Other than listing an order book, Haveno wouldn’t be providing any value in mediating the order since only one side is actually using Haveno.

Give it time. I never used LocalMonero since I was happy with instant exchanges but I came close to using it just before it got shut down. At the time, there were only 2-3 acceptable sellers of XMR for Canadian Dollars and the best one kept having banking issues. There are currently 2 acceptable sellers of XMR for Canadian Dollars, which means that in Haveno’s short life it’s getting close to replacing LocalMonero for me. My hope is that eventually it gets integrated with Unstoppable Swap and BasicSwapDEX (and maybe Serai DEX) since there’s no technical reason it can’t automatically mirror the offers. Once that happens, it’ll have more than enough liquidity for anyone.

May I suggest that you don’t convert to fiat and instead buy either gift cards and debit cards or buy items directly with Monero? This avoids all the KYC issues with offramps and helps the Monero economy. If you need the cash in hand, then buy a gift card for something you normally pay with fiat (e.g. amazon, gas, phone, vpn, etc) and then use the money you would have spent on those items or bills for whatever you need the cash for.

Also agreed. Having atomic swaps for BCH, LTC (MimbleWimble), and ETH would be fantastic. IMO, we don’t need liquidity pools if we could have a simple UI that would allow us to say “I have 30 LTC to convert to XMR” and it allows you to divide up your 30 LTC into several XMR offers and then press “start” to execute the batch process. Sure you might only be able to convert 29.3 LTC to XMR using this method, but it would be completely peer to peer and could be done without the need for an arbitrator or liquidity pools or (if it’s loaded into wallets) any separate software like Haveno that you have run on your computer. It would also allow someone to convert large quantities of one crypto into another safely without arbitrators. And if I’m not mistaken, the trade could be done in parallel so making a trade of 50 smaller exchanges would not be significantly longer than a single trade.

Objectively, ZCash has the equivalent of FCMP++ right now but there are a few issues. Firstly, most ZCash transactions are public so the anonymity set for ZCash is small and even smaller when compared with Monero which has a lot more users. Also, because of the former issue, every time you switch from public to private transactions, it taints your wallet just as it does with coinjoins in Bitcoin. There’s also a much smaller purely private ecosystem (e.g. Haveno, Atomic Swaps, Serai, Tari, DarkFI, etc), since there is less pressure to do things privately. That makes it easier for ZCash to cave to governments request, even if it didn’t have a company to target. It also lacks other features like Dandelion++ to help anonymity or P2Pool and RandomX to help avoid centralisation. Pirate chain, being a fork of ZCash, solves some of these issues by getting rid of the public blockchain but it is smaller and dependent on ZCash for new research so it is not viable yet.

Agreed, all wallets should included and added to a trust tier chart. Note that multicoin is not the only unreasonable exclusion. Non-reproducible wallets are also excluded, so the monero.com and Monerujo wallets are also excluded. Unless you have a completely controlled and specified environment (i.e. linker and linker version, compiler and compiler version, all needed libraries and library versions, target type), no source code is binary reproducible. You might get it with the JVM or Qt or Go but those are minority platforms for wallets. What counts is that you can compile the code yourself if you distrust the source. Similarly, multicoin is only a problem if monero is “just another coin” and not the primary coin of the wallet or if the code is mixed together so a bug in another coin could compromise the security of Monero. So Monerujo, Cake, and Monero.com should at least be added, even if they classify them as tier two wallets. Stack wallet would then go in tier three since it is multicoin without a Monero focus, and all the other wallets except Exodus for be tier four, and Exodus being closed source would be tier five.

I would agree with preferring light mode (with an off white background), but the community is split on the issue. Having a toggle mode would be helpful, but there might be a third alternative that might work for the community, beige mode like FIRO does ( https://firo.org/ ). Imagine using the hammermanns design but using the more beige versions of the Monero colors (toned down orange, dark grey, and white) as being the primary colors on the web site. It would show Monero is different and is a compromise between the “hacker black” and “corporate white” used by nearly every other crypto.

No comparison, I like hammermann’s the best. The only real criticism is that white text on black “burns my eyes” and is harder to read, so I’d much rather an off white font is used. The offwhite that’s under the Monero coin on the side is about the right brightness. The only caution I’d give is that although the Roadmap is cool and both new and old users want to see it, it might be best to keep it off the front page since it’s unlikely that it would be updated regularly and it might be easier to maintain on a different page (or offsite, e.g. github).

Very interesting video. Is far as I can see, there are really only three points of weakness that were exploited by the chain analysis. The first was if the transaction was started using one of their Monero nodes. The second was exchanges or partner services. The third was the fee structure used. So as long as you use the default fees, use trusted Monero nodes (especially your own), and you either don’t use exchanges/partner services or at the very least, have multiple wallets where each wallet connects to at most one exchange/service (i.e. one wallet has public money inflows from a single service and another has public money outflows from a single service), it would be virtually impossible to have your transactions traced.