12:02:11 <gingeropolous> so listening to recent monero talk had a thought that has given me more interest in atomic swaps. mainly it has to do with migration. so, in the event that quantum computers can do their thing, and all chain history is exposed, instead of simply forking to a post-quantum whatsit, would it be more advantageous to migrate to a new chain?
12:02:21 <gingeropolous> or would the atomic swap effectively function as linking
12:03:16 <gingeropolous> i guess i've always sorta grokked the concept from bitcoin that side chains could be migrated to, but how does that work out if there's not a flag day event or whatever its called
12:04:03 <gingeropolous> i.e., if a migration event occurs, non-participants still require a functioning monero network perhaps years on.. i guess the network just chugs on, and it can support multiple blockchains
12:05:26 <gingeropolous> non-linking atomic swaps . is that a thing?
22:08:03 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Hey so I just read through the recent logs of much discussion of diminishing returns on ringsizes and ring loops and such
22:09:14 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> And I remembered there was discussion long before about "matching code" as some sort of modular simulated Monero blockchain
22:09:23 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> Did that ever work out?
22:10:30 <xmrmatterbridge> <cankerwort> I have a hazy memory of the goal being to identify at what level of ringsize the diminishing returns are no longer worth the transaction size increase