08:26:24 <grydz> Hi there, I wonder if an implementation of CLSAG in Python or Sage exists?
08:36:40 <TheCharlatan> grydz, sarang has a proof of concept implementation made for demonstration purposes (and not production use) in python here: https://github.com/SarangNoether/skunkworks/blob/clsag/clsag/clsag.py
08:40:58 <grydz> Thank TheCharlatan, that's exactly what I was looking for :)
16:15:08 <h4sh3d[m]> I’ll not be able to attend today’s meeting sadly, but have fun researchers!
16:59:30 <kinghat[m]> does the sarang ccs vacation require proof of vacation of from sarang and @sarangcat? pictures of the two with 🍹 on the 🏖️?
17:00:28 <kinghat[m]> we need proof of relaxation to fulfill the proposal.
17:00:31 <TheCharlatan> so, who is around?
17:00:36 <ArticMine> Hi
17:00:48 * Isthmus waves
17:01:08 <TheCharlatan> Hello :)
17:01:46 <TheCharlatan> are there any topics posted?
17:04:07 <ArticMine> I am not aware of any posted
17:05:21 <TheCharlatan> So straight to the round table then, does anybody have something to share or discuss?
17:05:30 <ArticMine> Yes
17:06:12 <ArticMine> I want to provide a brief update on issue 70 and my recommended changes
17:07:05 <ArticMine> https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/70
17:08:03 <ArticMine> I have finalized the consensus part with the recommendation of using the longterm median as the penalty free zone
17:08:18 <zkao> hello
17:09:19 <ArticMine> On the fee calculation part I am goin to wait for the HF this week before finalizing the fee calculations since then we will have actual on chain tx weight data
17:09:45 <ArticMine> The is one question I like some feedback on
17:10:42 <ArticMine> Namely where the community want to go with ring size. In particular if there is any interest in increasing this in the short term?
17:11:20 <ArticMine> The reason being this has a direct impact on tx weight
17:12:39 <zkao> Actually i worked on bitcoin fees before, and I find liveness is totally an understaded problem, specially on bitcoin... can u give a hint on how u pick the fees?
17:13:17 <ArticMine> What I will do is calculate the fees based upon no change from the current ring size of 11, unless there is a interest to change this
17:13:40 <TheCharlatan> I think the ring size discussion will arise once we get around deploying a one-out-of-many proof based system.
17:14:18 <ArticMine> So nothing before that. I will then work on that assumption
17:14:35 <TheCharlatan> given that it was not changed for CLSAG, I would say that appetite for changing it until then is low.
17:14:55 <ArticMine> That is also my impression
17:15:46 <Isthmus> Hey Artic, that makes sense. Would you mind also modeling for some larger ring sizes?
17:15:49 <Isthmus> My reasoning is this: if we set the fee system based on calculations that were only carried out for ring size 11, this might become a future sticking point (based on bad logic) when discussing potential increases ("Oh well, privacy aside, we shouldn't touch the ring size because our fee economics are based on ring size 11")
17:15:50 <ArticMine> zkao Fees in Monero are very different from Bitcoin, since they are effectively controlled by the adaptive blocksize
17:16:11 <Isthmus> (well, are based on <txn size> but you get the idea)
17:16:42 <Isthmus> So I think for the immediate decision, modeling for 11 alone is fine. But if you have the time/bandwidth to model other size in parallel might be good for future discourse
17:16:52 <ArticMine> Isthmus That is exactly my concern
17:18:52 <Isthmus> Hm, either way, it'll be interesting to see the sensitivity of (any given) fee system with respect to transaction size
17:19:13 <Isthmus> If models show that tx size could triple and fee system will still work, I think we can all rest easy
17:19:20 <ArticMine> That being said my overall recommendation is to increase the minimum penalty free zone currently at 3000 bytes if the reference tx size goes over 3000 bytes
17:20:04 <Isthmus> 300 kB currently, right?
17:20:13 <ArticMine> It is the ration of the tx size to the penalty free zone that is critical here
17:20:37 <ArticMine> 300,000 bytes with a reference tx size of 3000 bytes
17:21:02 <Isthmus> Ohh yea
17:21:03 * Isthmus nods
17:21:08 <Isthmus> Sorry, I'm sleep today and a bit slow
17:21:16 <Isthmus> s/p/py
17:21:16 <monerobux> Isthmus meant to say: Sorry, I'm sleepy today and a bit slow
17:21:19 <ArticMine> So it works if the bult of the tx are below 3000 bytes
17:21:29 <ArticMine> In any case modeling this is a great idea
17:21:47 <zkao> I understand that the adaptive block size is game changer. What I can contribute to this discussion from my experience in Bitcoin is: Fee estimators that look at the mempool in the very shortterm work, the ones that dont work look do stats of past data, and always gives irrevevant fees.
17:22:27 <ArticMine> That makes a lot of sense for Bitcoin
17:22:33 <Isthmus> Interesting note @zkao
17:24:11 <ArticMine> In Monero The main determining factor is are we in the penalty zone?
17:24:54 <ArticMine> By that I mean can we load the entire transaction pool into a block an not pay a penalty
17:25:58 <ArticMine> transaction pool being the equivalent to mempool in Monero
17:26:41 <ArticMine> So that in effect determines the fee level
17:27:16 <ArticMine> If the tx pool attracts a penalty then what is the max penalty rate
17:27:53 <zkao> so in bitcoin when the fees went insane, the issue was the fee estimators, new transactions kept overtaking all ones and so on
17:28:14 <zkao> but in fact they can just squeeze in, and pay almost the same fee as other transactions
17:28:58 <ArticMine> There is increase in supply as a result of demand regardless of price in Bitcoin
17:29:41 <ArticMine> In Monero if one increase price then one increases supply in a very predicable way
17:30:33 <ArticMine> So this actually leads to very deterministic fees if one assumes a free market
17:30:38 <Isthmus> Oh yea, I just remembered... Artic, how much would discretized fees (e.g. must be multiple of two, or power of two) impact your results?
17:31:14 <Isthmus> Cuz we've got a lot of problems with hardcoded fees (software fingerprint), hardcode absolute fees (software fingerprint), fee sniping (software fingerprint), anomalous repeated values (software fingerprint), ...
17:31:28 <zkao> actually the best strategy was to try to make the sorted fees on the transaction pool to be as smooth as possible to really allow prioritization of transactions. if the transaction pool fee distributions is totally irregular, its too hard to prioritize transaction
17:31:51 <ArticMine> The other issue in Monero is that one wants to avoid fee personas for reasons of privacy
17:32:03 <zkao> all im saying, the fee mess on bitcoin was not only because of congestion, but also because no fee estimator knew how to deal with that
17:32:28 <ArticMine> It is both
17:32:38 <zkao> exactly
17:34:35 <Isthmus> ( for anybody not familiar with the fee anomalies observed in the wild, plots start at 8:41 here https://youtu.be/XIrqyxU3k5Q?t=521 )
17:35:24 <ArticMine> Thanks I was looking for that link
17:35:48 <ArticMine> It deals very well with the fee persona issue
17:36:13 <Isthmus> I've never heard "fee persona" until today, and it's such a perfect term
17:36:20 * Isthmus adds to vocabulary
17:36:38 <ArticMine> It is easy to limit the number of fees and also limit the number of significant digits
17:37:10 <ArticMine> The key is to always round up and not down
17:37:28 <TheCharlatan> Isthmus, do you have anything to share with us?
17:39:57 <TheCharlatan> oh, and I was looking for the post-quantum report a few days ago. Where is it posted?
17:40:59 <Isthmus> A draft is here: https://github.com/insight-decentralized-consensus-lab/post-quantum-monero/blob/master/writeups/technical_note.pdf
17:40:59 <Isthmus> Haven't publicized yet, was going to wait 2 weeks for feedback from MRL et al. Otherwise, I'll blast onto Reddit and Twitter early next week
17:41:26 <Isthmus> Oh yea, good point about ceiling() vs round() @ArticMine
17:44:37 <TheCharlatan> I am posting some short articles on unlock time usage in monero. The first one is here (about hardware wallets no validating it): https://thecharlatan.ch/Wallet-Timelock/
17:45:02 <TheCharlatan> I'll post the next two over the next week.
17:45:39 <zkao> the title sounds like: i have fun burning money
17:45:57 <TheCharlatan> :D
17:46:24 <TheCharlatan> something something it's about sending a message.
17:48:12 <Isthmus> Haha I locked some Monero for 500 billion years once
17:48:13 <Isthmus> https://twitter.com/mitchellpkt0/status/1251621277179146240
17:48:31 <Isthmus> I was wondering what would happen if I sent deeply locked outputs to a CCS donation address
17:48:41 <Isthmus> Oh wait I should clarify
17:48:50 <Isthmus> The super locked outputs are from research wallet 1 --> research wallet 2
17:48:55 <Isthmus> Have NOT done any locked outputs to CCS
17:49:15 <Isthmus> Great writeup @TheCharlatan
17:53:18 <ArticMine> <Isthmus> Haha I locked some Monero for 500 billion years once <---- The US DOJ might be interested in that. It effectively burns Monero is the time  >> age of the universe
17:53:31 <ArticMine> if
17:54:40 <TheCharlatan> so I guess that it's for today?
17:55:09 <ArticMine> Looks like it
17:55:11 <Isthmus> Ooh @ArticMine I hadn't thought of that use case. Publicly verifiable too...
17:55:22 <Isthmus> Yea, I gotta hop onto a call
17:55:26 <Isthmus> gg
17:55:33 <TheCharlatan> see you later
17:56:32 <zkao> cheers guys