why the effort to write for nakamoto.com?

I was thinking it would be cool to mention Monero :- ) I've still some doubts that my articles will be accepted

I just applied to give a talk about fungibility at the MCC. Hopefully I'm selected

I need some help revising some of the wording for an article on the auditability of Monero

It's difficult to accurately describe the risks of implementation risks while keeping touch with reality

Here is the whole post so far:

I'm especially interested in updating line 21. I have considered a few wordings

I think it's important to acknowledge that there are honest-to-goodness cryptographic hardness assumption breaks (which at present are exceptionally unlikely), implementation/consensus bugs that are detectable (e.g. the Bitcoin inflation bug, the Monero key image bug), and then there are bugs that would not be detectable (e.g. Zcash's soundness bug)

The former is IMO not something to keep you up at night

My current best thought is to add "Certain classes of flaws could lead to undetectable supply tampering or tampering that is only noticeable after the flaw is discovered." to the end of line 21 but I don't love it

I think the reader should leave with the understanding that there are risks to a transparent asset and other risks to an opaque asset

and that the choice should depend on use case and an understanding of the risks

<sgp_> I just applied to give a talk about fungibility at the MCC. Hopefully I'm selected <-- nice! My impression was a rather poor Monero/privacy/fungibility presence last year

binaryFate: Brandon was there on a panel, but I think we need a good talk where people can actually see the implications of fungibility first-hand

don't reshare this outside of the channel yet please, but I finally have my recording of the talk I gave in late August at Andreas's conference

I opened with an activity where people traded tainted funds around, and it was pretty well-received I think and got the point across much better than a high-level discussion

Note that there is a Konferenco meeting in 1.25 hours in #monero-konferenco

And an MRL meeting in 0.25 hours in #monero-research-lab

sgp_: for the blag post, would it be useful to specifically enumerate those categories of risks? (hardness assumption break, detectable flaw, undetectable flaw)

It's not possible to specifically quantify the risk (although the risk of an underlying hardness assumption break seems faaaar lower), but at least it can help drive the discussion that not all risks are created equal

sarang: I would need further explanation on what you're getting at

It could be useful to discuss how a hardness break, while negligible risk at present, could affect _any_ cryptographically-secured ledger

A detectable flaw can arise from many things, and that class can (and has) affected different ledger types

While an undetectable flaw is more unique to opaque ledgers... and perhaps that's where the idea of balancing risks is most relevant

helo!

hey parasewX. the konferenco meeting is in #monero-konferenco in 5 mins if you are about?

and for anyone else....

who is interested

yes of course! great to be back, c3 was a bit exhausting, i am officially back from now on :)

<rehrar> so then...