John Foss

holy shit the last CEX standing selling $XMR is conceding. I guess I figured this day would come. @thorchain listing $XMR is going to be critical infra

6. Any other business Rucknium checked the status of remaining FCMP++ items needed before deployment. Major blockers: beta stressnet, research audit tasks (including possible extra round on circuits/gadgets), and multisig. Koe is nearly complete with multisig; Jeffro is nearly complete with hot/cold implementation, with a recent major change to carrot_core affecting dependent PRs. Hardware wallets remain the biggest open item pending vendor capacity. @cakewallet is preparing a stressnet build. plowsof and ofrnxmr discussed testing cold signing/airgap and mobile wallets on stressnet. Rucknium will add a recurring general FCMP update to future agendas. v2.1 blocking tasks focused on a rare double-spend error (low priority; main issue is node failing to relay tx). jpk68 reported outreach to Trezor on hardware wallet support. rucknium: 6. Any other business rucknium: I want to check in on status of the last FCMP++ items needed before deployment. rucknium: jberman: Do these reflect the current remaining items: github.com/seraphis-migra…, cryptpad.fr/sheet/#/2/shee… rucknium: Is there another list we should be looking at, too? rucknium: Or anyone else can comment on the to-do list, too. jberman: The remaining major blockers include: 1. Beta stressnet 2. Research Audit tasks 3. Multisig 4. Hot/cold wallets 5. Hardware wallets 6. Getting all code merged jberman: That list reflects Research audit tasks. In addition to what's there, we've been discussing having another round of audits done on the circuit and gadgets impl (the equivalent area where Zcash had a hidden inflation bug) rucknium: The counterfeiting bugs & flaws in other coins make me nervous, personally. rucknium: They have always made me nervous, but there are more of them now. And more recent. jberman: I would say that if beta stressnet continues running the way it's been running, that beta has demonstrably served its purpose jberman: Koe is nearly complete with multisig jberman: Jeffro is nearly complete with hot/cold impl, which I've also reviewed in depth thus far jberman: Hardware wallets are probably the biggest question mark on the impl front at the moment. Not that we won't be able to complete it. But we've been waiting on the vendors to indicate they have the capacity to do it asap ofrnxmr: jberman: plowsof should test the cold signing airgap stuff for fcmp++ (and mobile eallet migration in general) jberman: And then on merging code: we're making incremental progress on that front. Crypto building blocks are making their way in. That's been/will be my first priority at this point plowsof: creating an unsigned tx set + signing (if thats possible now, it will be great to try) ofrnxmr: I think an impotant step on the way, is for mobile wallet to be tested on stressnet jberman: Cake mentioned they're going to prepare a build for the beta stressnet, so that'll be nice ofrnxmr: Cake said theyd thibk abt it in public, maybe confirmed it elsewhere> ofrnxmr: Acx said he couldnt get monfluo to build for master, and monerujo didnt respond yet rucknium: Should I create a general FCMP update item on future agendas, or is there no need? jberman: plowsof: AFAIK jeffro256 is still finalizing the PR from my review comments, but once that PR is fully ready, will be able to test it (will link the PR in a sec) jberman: rucknium: Sgtm jberman: This is the development branch PR for hot/cold wallets: github.com/seraphis-migra… rucknium: jberman: I will do it. jberman: And then that'll get pulled into beta once it's ready here: github.com/seraphis-migra… rucknium: jberman: Thanks for explaining the FCMP to-do list! rucknium: Anything else anyone wants to bring up? jeffro256: Yeah, I recently made a big change to the carrot_core lib here: github.com/seraphis-migra…. Now the hot-cold PR, and the knowledge proofs PR depend on it jeffro256: Today I'm refactoring all the doc strings in my Carrot code so they can be parsed by Doxygen, and I'm reviewing Ukoe's review of carrot_impl jeffro256: j-berman Should we mention blocking tasks for v2.1? jberman: Sure, blocking task is me looking into rucknium's latest logs showing another double spend error running code that solves a bug that was contributing to the issue, but apparently there is still another bug causing it and needs further investigation jberman: I haven't had the chance to dig into those logs yet rucknium: How important is it to fully resolve the double-spend error? It is extremely rare. rucknium: In terms of priorities jberman: Not very, I'm not prioritizing it highly at this point (and have also had somewhat limited availability this past week), which is why I haven't gotten to it jpk68: I contacted @Trezor on Twitter, trying to give them contact info. They responded and said their devs were already in contact, which seems to be... not true rucknium: (Note to readers: "double-spend error" does not mean that the blockchain accepts a double-spend. The error occurs because the wallet software forgets that it spent a coin and then tries to spend the coin again. The node rejects the transaction with a double-spend error.) plowsof: ideally the wallet would self correct, the outputs marked as double spent in the tx are then marked as such and the next attempt does not include them. is this not happening? ofrnxmr: Its not rucknium: We can end the meeting here. Thanks everyone! jberman: The more pressing concern with the issue ATM is that the node isn't relaying the tx in the first place, so tx gets stuck in the node un-relayed. That's the core thing that needs to be fixed here #c690438" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">libera.monerologs.net/monero-researc…

An update on emsczkp’s CCS proposal for research into*Bulletproofs* (BP*/BulletproofsStar), a folding scheme for Bulletproofs that aims to asymptotically reduce verifier execution time to logarithmic across many proofs: Milestone 2 has been completed. jberman reviewed the revised paper and proofs, describing them as solid, and supported payout of the CCS milestone. He recommended a dedicated mathematical review once the work is finished (similar to the process used for FCMP++). rucknium: Last time emsczkp discussed his progress. jberman intended to look at the revised paper IIRC. emsczkp: I have nothing to add beyond what said during the previous meeting. It was great to see positive comments on socials jberman: I haven't had a chance to dive, but the revised paper (and proofs) looks solid neptunian: jberman: ++ jberman: I think once the work is complete, it'll make sense to get another maths review on it, similar to how we've done for FCMP++ jberman: But reiterating, looking like great progress, and exciting results! Well done emsczkp emsczkp: thank you! rucknium: Last meeting, emsczkp asked whether it is OK to payout Milestone 2 of his CCS at this point or if more review is necessary. jberman: I'm a +1 on payout emsczkp: rucknium: Exactly, thank you for the clarification rucknium: emsczkp: When the paper is complete, do you intend to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal or conference? emsczkp: rucknium: yes, that's the goal rucknium: That wouldn't necessarily be as rigorous as MRL would like it, but it would be at least another set of critical eyes on it. rucknium: I mean, if the results were to be used in actual production Monero code. rucknium: I am +1 on payout too, but I have not tried to understand the paper. Any other opinions here? emsczkp: Exactly, and I’ll work on a submission to the first major conference on the subject asap rucknium: emsczkp: Thank you. neptunian: emsczkp: Hope to see you at EUROCRYPT :-) emsczkp: Thank you, community, for the support on this reseach , which I strongly believe in and it is a very long story to me rucknium: luigi1111 luigi1111_ : FWIW, we have support in this MRL meeting to payout emsczkp Milestone 2 of repo.getmonero.org/monero-project… rucknium: More discussion on this item? rucknium: Thanks, emsczkp #c688489" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">libera.monerologs.net/monero-researc…

Spread the word! Another NYC Monero meetup !! Will be attending! We invited everyone on our Monero meetup page too: meetup.com/monero-enthusi… But please rsvp on @FreedomLabNYC ‘s Luna page:

emsczkp: this updated version of the paper provides the proofs of the main theorems establishing the security of the BP* folding scheme. In particular, Theorem 1 proves that the modified AC proof for Bulletproofs is complete, HVZK, and special sound. Before introducing the BP* folding scheme, the paper presents an intermediate step, namely the Commit-and-Open (C&O) transform. This defines a new interactive argument by adding an auxiliary commitment at the end of the proof, namely a commitment to the final prover message. Lemma 2 shows that this C&O variant is secure assuming the security of the modified AC proof. Theorem 2 then shows that the BP* folding scheme, built on the NARK C&O variant, is complete and knowledge-sound. The revised version also includes some changes with respect to the previous draft. In particular, it introduces a new algebraic verifier map V^comm and its relaxed version. This required the introduction of additional error terms in both the accumulator and the accumulation proof. Overall, the main purpose of this step is the security proof I've added more details in the GitLab update comment jberman: sounding like great progress! rucknium: Thank you, emsczkp. After completing Milestone 2, did you uncover anything that makes Milestone 3 (extend Bulletproofs* to Generalized Bulletproofs) more difficult or easier? emsczkp: thanks, for the step 3 i think it will be appropriate to go into detail about GBP's relation and security proofs, but the folding scheme now appears to me extendable to GBP emsczkp: i can't say for sure, but i see good foundations rucknium: Do you have more discussion of this item or questions for emsczkp at this time? rucknium: Thank you, emsczkp. emsczkp: Can I quickly ask about the Milestone ? Do people think another review slot is needed next week, or can we consider the current state sufficient for approval? Thanks rucknium: IMHO this depends on if anyone plans to spent time reading the revised paper at this point. rbrunner: Yeah, feedback from one of our cryptographers would be interesting rbrunner: Even as they are surely quite busy already ... #c687164" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">libera.monerologs.net/monero-researc…