12:19:05 If only one of you gave Papa ChooChoo some TLC there, instead of ignoring him, none of this would have happened 12:19:08 https://np.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/5lsfgt/xmrstakcpu_high_performance_open_source_miner/dbz0jnp/ 18:44:17 Hi all! I was one of the authors of the CCS proposal on BP+ along with @omershlo. Been following the BP+ updates from sarang and excited to see the verification and proof size numbers panning out to be encouraging. 18:46:13 As we had concluded on our proposal (https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/156), Me and Omershlo (along with appropriate academic advisory) would be willing to audit Bulletproofs+ for Monero. I'm reaching out to MRL to discuss about the same. 18:50:33 sarang: sgp_ ^ 18:51:12 suyash67: excellent, we've been meaning to reach out 19:00:14 :D 19:01:09 Hi sarang, sgp_, moneromooo! 19:05:42 Have you had a chance to peruse the code at all? 19:05:58 There are a few optimizations that may not be immediately obvious 19:06:21 I had started to look at it some time back, but haven't looked at it in detail. 19:09:52 Got it, thanks 19:10:34 What scope of audit would your team be able/interested to provide, and with what deliverables? 19:11:06 The previous Bulletproofs audit results are posted and available as an example of what's been done previously 20:07:55 Anyone have advice/can point me in the direction of a good source for analysis on the security of sha256 hashing 20:09:21 What about it? The SHA-2 family has been widely studied 20:12:09 We are thinking of the scope similar to that of the Bulletproofs audit. We would put up more details in a formal proposal. Will we have to write a CCS proposal for the same? sarang 21:10:19 sarang: I am sure it has, but I was looking for a good/reputable source. 21:24:00 Looks like the researcher quit, but if they pop up again, they can also use MAGIC's fundraising method if they want 21:24:21 Will want to see what their general proposal looks like however