13:49:48 <sarang> Hello all
13:49:57 <sarang> Working on a deep dive of Bulletproofs+ today
13:51:10 <sarang> Some parts seem to switch up notation for no good reason :(
13:55:14 <sgp_> it might be better to contact them first with a list of general questions before doing a deep dive, since the efficiency gains don't seem huge
14:01:09 <fluffypony> sarang: have you seen the Tari Labs stuff on amortization of the bulletproofs inner-product proof?
14:01:24 <fluffypony> it's funny how the inner-product proof is becoming the focus area
14:03:33 <sarang> The IPP is where the magic happens
14:03:48 <sarang> Size benefits, delaying verification to a single round
14:04:35 <fluffypony> https://tlu.tarilabs.com/cryptography/amortization-bp-ipp/mainreport.html
14:04:38 <fluffypony> for those that haven't seen it
15:26:37 <sarang> Looks like the Bulletproofs+ construction should be ever-so-slightly faster than Bulletproofs overall
15:27:01 <sarang> It's not clear why the authors saw a slight performance hit compared to the dalek BP library
15:27:47 <sarang> And, as has been pointed out, it saves 96 bytes per proof, regardless of the number of aggregated outputs contained therein
15:31:12 <sarang> Also interesting is that the prover is more efficient as well
15:31:34 <sgp_> so you think the verification should be more efficient too?
15:36:55 <sarang> Negligibly, but yes
15:39:00 <sarang> RIP matrix apparently
15:55:04 <UkoeHB_> Maybe the dalek library is better optimized
15:57:45 <sarang> Most likely
15:58:04 <sarang> Would depend on precisely how they implemented BP+