Meeting summary: Seraphis Wallet Workgroup, 14 November 2022

Posted Thu, 17 Nov 2022, from Monero Observer

Source Article Link:

This is a comprehensive summary, with added reference links, of the Seraphis Wallet Workgroup meeting1 from November 14th 2022, 1800 UTC.


The raw, unedited, full log file for this meeting:

221114-seraphis.log (130 lines)


Note: it is possible that some relevant information may be missing from this summary; read the full log file for the complete, unedited discussion.

  • Participants: 10 (rbrunner72, one-horse-wagon3, jberman4, JoshBabb5, UkoeHB6, Rucknium7, moneromoooo8, interloper9, BusyBoredom10, spacekitty42011)

  • (1) On the Seraphis HF ETA

  • rbrunner7 was wondering when the hardfork to Seraphis might take place; one-horse-wagon suggested 3 years if all goes well; UkoeHB and jberman agreed on a more optimistic 2 years estimate

  • (2) On choosing a project name12

  • rbrunner7 shared some options: Seraphis wallet and wallet3

  • jberman voted for wallet3, arguing that calling it Seraphis wallet would limit it to Seraphis and could potentially cause confusion if there is some significant upgrade in the future

  • UkoeHB voted against wallet3, as that would imply another monolith, and suggested xmr wallet suite (wallet_suite) instead

  • one-horse-wagon suggested The Seraphis Project, as that could help with advertising/funding: we need a name that sells out there; UkoeHB didn’t particularly care about the marketing aesthetic

  • rbrunner7 voted for Seraphis wallet, discarding wallet3 as non-descript and a bit boring

  • JoshBabb voted for wallet3, as that is related to wallet2 and to Monero by context: Seraphis doesn’t relate to Monero to me yet; rbrunner7 noted that wallet2 is insider-knowledge

  • Rucknium suggested the group should also consider threats of users being scammed

  • rbrunner7 acknowledged the lack of consensus and closed the subject: maybe the people over in #monero-community can duke it out

  • (3) On nesting Seraphis folders in the Monero core repo13

  • UkoeHB commented that they plan to, later this week, do a commit to reorganize things accordingly

  • rbrunner7 offered to help set up a repository and guide UkoeHB when he reorganizes his library

  • rbrunner7 shared the main proposed approaches: 1) Add a number of Seraphis-related “top level” folders, i.e. in /src., and 2) Add something like 2 such top-level folders, and then go one level deeper within those.

  • UkoeHB thought that it doesn’t make sense to have subfolders: Multisig utilities depend on seraphis crypto and seraphis mulitisig depends on the multisig utilities, and multisig utils are in the main src/

  • rbrunner7 wondered if anyone would object to adding 10 more folders to the existing 30 folders in /src14, considering that people attach to such folders and folder names

  • UkoeHB commented that although rearranging files and folders is a bit tedious, it is not a big deal

  • jberman didn’t have anything to object, but noted that he would prefer to avoid a ton of new top-level folders

  • BusyBoredom noted that he would expect to see, from the perspective of a new Monero developer, a wallet/ folder inside src/ with contents broken out further bellow that, as opposed to things relating to wallet internals inside src/

  • rbrunner7 remarked that it is a bit early to decide something and some experimentation is probably in order before changing topics

  • (4) Seraphis terminology

    • (4.1) on term to use for ‘output’ (enotes)15:

    • rbrunner7 asked if everyone is in agreement to replace the term output with the new enote term coined by UkoeHB

    • one-horse-wagon, interloper, rbrunner7, spacekitty420 and jberman agreed

    • JoshBabb wondered if the existence of the ‘enotes’ cryptocurrency project16 and a registered trademark for two different applications could be a deal breaker; rbrunner7 didn’t see any problem with that

    • rbrunner7 noted that everyone present is in agreement and unless there are any objections post-meeting, enote will replace output

    • (4.2) on naming unique transaction identifiers (transaction id/transaction hash)17:

    • rbrunner7, spacekitty420 and UkoeHB voted for using ‘transaction id’ instead of ‘transaction hash’

    • (4.3) on avoiding the term ‘transfer’18:

    • rbrunner7 voted to avoid using the potentially misleading term for the Seraphis wallet, noting that transfer is currently being used in various ways in wallet2, in CLI wallet commands, and RPC server commands

    • one-horse-wagon agreed with rbrunner7 and noted that the term is a catchall for everything and it can be easily misunderstood

    • UkoeHB didn’t think that it makes sense to fully ban the term: in our world a transaction is a thing and transfer funds is what it does

Let me know if you find this kind of report helpful.

Feedback, edits always welcome @/about.


  1. /seraphis-wallet-workgroup-meeting-14-november-2022/ 


  3. (Matrix) 


  5. (Matrix) 




  9. (IRC/Libera) interloper 


  11. (Matrix) 








License: CC BY 4.0, no changes were made to the article.