16:21:36 <dEBRUYNE> Not sure if correct channel to ask, but for the Atomic Swaps proposal, will there be a written summary with each successfully completed milestone?
16:21:49 <dEBRUYNE> Think it would be a good way to inform the community as well as the donors
16:23:14 <sethsimmons> Could ask in #monero-swap
16:40:19 <zkao> dEBRUYNE yes, that is something we should do
16:57:59 <dEBRUYNE> I think a monthly update, similar to how surae and sarang did, would be stellar
16:58:26 <dEBRUYNE> It would provide a healthy balance (i.e. not too much work due to too frequent updates, but still sufficient to keep the community up to date)
17:47:27 <zkao> ack, fyi funding went much faster than expected, and we havent yet managed to work for real on the project, will have a first team meeting next week
19:29:51 <dEBRUYNE> zkao: All right :)
22:49:02 <sarang> Any particular thoughts from anyone on whether it would be useful for me to work on a BP+ implementation via CCS?
22:52:22 <kenshamir[m]> <sarang "Any particular thoughts from any"> Was there significant gains to be made from using BP+? I haven’t kept track so completely clueless
22:52:40 <kenshamir[m]> * > <@freenode_sarang:matrix.org> Any particular thoughts from anyone on whether it would be useful for me to work on a BP+ implementation via CCS?
22:52:40 <kenshamir[m]> Were there significant gains to be made from using BP+? I haven’t kept track so completely clueless
22:54:32 <kenshamir[m]> I think I remember something about it performing better in terms of proof size or maybe prover time?
22:59:40 <sarang> There are size benefits
23:09:57 <kenshamir[m]> Would be interesting to work on imo since it would translate to smaller transactions/blocks
23:38:37 <UkoeHB__> sarang: are you aware of any research (experimental or otherwise) into range proof techniques that go beyond BP+ in terms of size/performance? if not, then marginal improvements to BP won't be easily usurped and are worth nailing down