> Unnamed Monero Wallet is the ... "dev has gone solo" name of his first album
More or less accurate take. I didn't want to go solo on it - if I would want to go solo on it I wouldn't work for couple of months on anonero and I wouldn't push for the rewrite to happen, the reason for the split to happen was a underestimate on my end on how long it will take to finish it, lack of agreement on how to resolve the situation.

So me "going solo" skips huge part of the story but okay.

> due to to some disagreements, so they took anonero v1.0, changed the color theme, and rebranded

And implemented couple of features... Signing, QubesOS mode, made the app cross platform, implemented stealth mode, added support for subaccounts, added offline currency converter, ported the app to other operating systems (which I am really proud of because xmruw is the first monero wallet and first flutter app to be available on SailfishOS).
Some of these features (stealth mode only from the list above) was on roadmap that I was aware of, and rest wasn't.

Yet still I feel like we are missing out a nearly month of discussion regarding what to do with the rewrite. After I told you that we can't reuse code from current implementation and that it is much bigger task than I expected you said that if you knew that earlier you wouldn't start the rewrite. Also please don't forget that my first offer was:

> We forget that rewrite took place, I'll make this my (yet another) pet project and I can continue to work on v0 (if you want), smash bugs in there, do a stealth mode and embedded i2p there, and treat this rewrite as a alpha-quality software which is a testing ground for the real product - anonero

Or

> We can continue to work on this v1 - but I doubt that this is good idea as I can see that we see things differently (I really focus on the 95% of the invisible work that is making code easier to work on, more robust and you focus on the 95% that user see, which is why developers should never be able to talk directly to the people they are doing work for, as we consider the "5% of the work" that we do to be also 5% for everybody else but it's just not.)

The 5% of the work I mention is regarding UX issues.

> So I suggest rewinding time back to the moment we have agreed to do the rewrite, and pretend that I've estimated the required time to well over [redacted], you tell me that it's not worth it and we move to stealth (and I'm sorry for wasting your time and keeping updates to anonero on hold)

> So TL;DR: I have made a bad estimation, and wasn't the right person to do the task, if you want to we can pretend that this never took place and we can come back to to v0, and make stealth with a little cleanup a v1 update.

Then when we fast forward to the day of xmruw announcement, and the official split of project I just went ahead and started doing stealth mode patch for anonero (which was announced (by me) in official anonero chat on telegram but its history got wiped, however it can still be found on twitter), I've also sent it to r​4v3r23 dm but got ghosted, in addition to purging telegram side of our development group. Only change I made to xmruw (at that time) was changing the name and removing the theme config from anonero, so reverting it would be easy

> the current xmruw wallet is just a copy (feature wise) of anonero

It is not. It is a rewrite and is has more features and cleaner codebase when compared to anonero, it also isn't based on monerujo but built from the ground up with modularity in mind.

> i dont see why the wallet should be funded since they just copied us, but the underlying monero_c lib is interesting

I'd like to continue working on the project (either as anonero or xmruw) and if my situation was different I wouldnt open the CCS.
If you want to I can make anonero flavour or even change name back to it but we would need to discuss some details regarding the priorities. So calling it interesting now while telling me to not fix a bug in it because it slows down development of the rewrite... is not cool.
Also "just copied us"? I did the work because of anonero and for anonero in the first place.

> yeah, i think its worth separating the lib from the wallet itself

It is separate. Every aspect of xmruw is a separate package that can be easily reused.

> as it stands now, cyjan is lumping them together. xmruw wallet is written in flutter/dart - thats project specific and not useful for the ecosysem

Arguably, there are many wallets written in flutter, and monero.dart is usable both on server side dart code and in flutter. All parts of the wallet are modular so cake and other flutter wallets can use for example bytewords (or even monero.dart).
Not lumping them together, it is one project, just made in a modular way, but I get the point and I can separate them however working on the library alone is really hard if you don't develop a project that use it.

> It should be an easy choice. r4v3r23: is a well known entity, while the fork dude is totally unknown to me, at least.

agreed, I am quite new. However I have spent last couple months working on anonero / xmruw, but yeah I do lack some street credit.

> ive worked with cyjan and can vouch for them. [...] the issue I have with them is work related, not code related.

Thanks...

> also, the asking rate of $125/XMR is a piss take

I've did what I have seen in other CCS requests, I can change that if needed.

> I did not take the time to look a their CCS request. I'm pretty sure, if their direction is the best path, you'd go that way.

I did take a different approach to almost everything, for better or for worse. My idea was to simplify everything, which caused some UX problems which was also huge contributor to the split.
However xmruw gained pretty high portability which is a benefit we get effectively for free due to design choices, and portability was almost impossible to achieve in current anonero codebase.

> I'm not sure if building on `wallet2_api.h` at this stage in seraphis development is worthwhile. We don't know how much of it will have to be added, binned or rewritten - or if this interface will even exist post-Seraphis. https://github.com/seraphis-migration/wallet3/issues/5

I'm willing to make monero_c api compatible with wallet3 when it comes, or with whatever other api will get announced. I don't think that we should halt all the development because of api changes, also migrating to something else doesn't seem like a large task to me as a api consumer - I just need to replace few calls and I'm good to go.