jberman reported that integration PRs are ready for review with followups implemented. Quotes for the integration audit are being fielded; final quotes and internal discussion are expected by next week. interestingband asked for the expected timeline including the hardfork date and stated an independent approach (spec, formal verification, ref implementation, performance testing) that can be done alone with AI, while also noting a possible Bulletproofs++ path for ~50% smaller membership proofs (PoC exists but not formally proven). jberman hoped for all code ready in Q1 and preferred reviews over full reimplementation. jeffro256 argued against waiting indefinitely for perfect unproven solutions, favoring the historical approach of moving forward then replacing modules. interestingband provided a short code snippet link and reiterated that the current work lacks a single spec and formal proof. sgp_ suggested discussing the BP++ idea separately; jberman saw it as interesting for a follow-up fork. jberman: integration PR's are ready for review, followups implemented jberman: we're fielding quotes for the integration audit and discussing them internally, I think we should have final quotes and discussion by next week jberman: > interestingband: FCMP todo list: spec for it (no single spec), formal verificaiton of spec (most audits are just not reproducible "opinions"), ref implementation, performance testing (benchmark of ref implementation under simulated load), done; No idea what is a purpose of the meeting if 1 person can do it all with AI instead of bunch of humans walking in circles for few years; jberman: interestingband wants to do all this too, so nice interestingband: One q, what is expected timeline for it all at the moment including date for the actual hardfork ? jberman: personally hoping all code is ready Q1. reviews would help move things along rather than trying to redo everything your way interestingband: My approach is indepnedent on what others are doing and it's the only way to get the best result that I would be ok myself. jberman: ok interestingband: Btw, there is likely a way to use bulletproofs++ like instead of generalized bulletproofs and it allow 50% smaller membership proofs interestingband: I have PoC and it looks feasible, but proven yet formally jberman: IIRC Aaron had some reservations on BP++ interestingband: And there is little difference to verify formal proof with generalized bulletproofs or bulletproofs++ as proving system jberman: but that does sound interesting sgp_: This may be best to discuss separately interestingband: sgp_: ok jberman: imo would be interesting for a followup fork fwiw rucknium: More on this item? jeffro256: If we wait on perfect unproven solutions indefinitely, then no one gets FCMPs. Better to do what we've done in the past, which is: move forward, then replace modules with more efficient alternatives. There's a lot more work in doing a FCMP-style hardfork for Monero then just the BP code interestingband: some real numbers for what is likely feasible interestingband: https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/p/vbPv6LgLOEc0dnZP/1.txt (code snippet, 5 lines) rucknium: jeffro256: Need to start doing a wait calculation for FCMP

Interstellar travel - Wikipedia

interestingband: jeffro256: (the point is that current isn't proven, it doesn't even have a spec to prove, but once you have it, proving small change is easy, once you have full setup) interestingband: jeffro256: (and privacy leak in carrot is an example of what wasn't proven in it, after your changes it's still unproven, it's just that you addresses discovered so far edge cases) interestingband: jeffro256: (and my initial goal was to verify/prove what is written so far, bulletproofs++ addon is just a discovery in the process)

#monero-research-lab

View quoted note →