06:05:25 <fluffypony> selsta: asymptotically is correct, they'd fail validation
06:05:32 <fluffypony> so at best you'd get a short string of invalid blocks and block the node
06:06:06 <selsta> thanks
06:06:15 <selsta> fluffypony: will ping you later today about DNS
06:06:21 <fluffypony> kk
10:12:28 <philogy> Is there a cryptographic way to generate a value sG from a set of public keys K_1 ... K_n such that any one with a private key corresponding to a public key in the set can retrieve s but nobody else not even the generator of sG?
10:14:04 <philogy> also could such an operation be done non-interactively?
10:36:07 <binaryFate> fluffypony: about DNS, the XMR donation address has to be updated in openalias record if not done yet
10:42:20 <UkoeHB_> philogy very unlikely
10:44:41 <philogy> Because I was thinking if a sender creates a more complex transaction with multiple outputs that revoke each other knowing the private revocation key   s  would allow him to know when any of the outputs are spent because he could recreate the revocation key image
10:48:23 <philogy> is [rK1]K2 = [rK2]K1 ?
10:56:32 <moneromooo> It's not true, the wallet does not do block validation. It's the node's job (and if you offload that job to an untrusted party, then you asked for it).
11:34:46 <UkoeHB_> philogy: you can't multiply curve points together
11:37:20 <UkoeHB_> Wouldn't the sender know s if he made the tx?
11:42:46 <philogy> I mean you can just interpret the point in the [] as an integer right?
11:43:31 <philogy> that's what I'm researching, if there is an easy way for the sender to create sG so that the recipients know s but the sender doesn't
12:59:57 <philogy> UkoeHB_: as I've come to understand it there are 2 options: either sG is created by a shared secret which has to be interactively created or one has to prove that the different commitments add up to zero
13:01:01 <philogy> The first comes with the downside of interactivity the second with the downside of additional data
13:07:09 <sarang> philogy: that's not how the group structure works unfortunately
13:08:31 <philogy> sarang: what do you mean by group structure I'm not too familiar with all the terminology I'm afraid
13:11:37 <sarang> I mean that scalars and group elements can't be mixed-and-matched in that way algebraically
13:12:30 <sarang> The only well-defined operation on two group elements is addition, which is more complex than simple integer addition (or modular addition, for that matter)
13:13:07 <philogy> is group addition another way of saying point addition?
13:13:35 <sarang> Yes; curve points have a group structure
15:23:44 <fluffypony> binaryFate: oh - yeah it hasn't yet
15:24:51 <fluffypony> binaryFate: updated
15:25:52 <UkoeHB_> philogy: that seems to be the case
19:26:05 <luigi1111w> moneromooo what's going on with the commit named "test" on 6574?
19:26:51 <fluffypony> it's a test of the emergency commit system
19:27:09 <fluffypony> :-P
19:27:35 <moneromooo> Ah, crap. That was some fix I needed someone to test with, which ended up in the PR. Thanks.
19:27:48 <moneromooo> Turns out the fix worked ^_^ I'll fix.
19:29:02 <moneromooo> Well, looks like I had fixed it but omitted the final push to github. Fixed.
19:29:11 <moneromooo> Thanks for checking :)
19:39:38 <luigi1111w> :)