17:41:05 <sarang> Hello all
17:41:12 <sarang> Working on updating some tests today
17:41:14 <sarang> Fun times!
17:41:23 <sarang> How's research
17:42:11 <sethsimmons> My poor man’s research could use some friendly fact-checking/verification: https://twitter.com/sethisimmons/status/1285336820264382468?s=21
17:43:01 <sethsimmons> I was pretty surprised to discover that the recommended way to spend Bitcoin privately was 600b heavier on-chain than a Monero 1-in 2-out transaction, while still providing less privacy/being far more difficult/being far more costly
17:43:25 <sarang> How are you defining "reasonably private" between the two?
17:43:54 <sarang> 1.7 kB is accurate for a typical 1-2 transaction on the Monero chain
17:43:58 <sethsimmons> Being used in the “recommended” sense
17:44:05 <sethsimmons> i.e. a normal spend in Monero
17:44:06 <sarang> 2.5 kB for a 2-2 (the other most common structure)
17:44:24 <sethsimmons> And a spend from a mix/STONEWALL in Bitcoin
17:44:56 <sethsimmons> For sake of simplicity I’m saying those are at least comparable in terms of privacy provided
17:45:06 <sethsimmons> Even though I know they’re not really/there is a lot of nuance between the two
17:45:16 <sarang> It would be interesting to see what you could get with Bitcoin at the same 1.7 kB level as Monero right now
17:45:19 <sethsimmons> But they’re the two “recommended” ways to transact with some privacy on both chains
17:45:25 <sarang> Also note that Monero transactions are about to get smaller
17:45:32 <sethsimmons> Yeah
17:45:46 <sethsimmons> Which makes this even more in Monero’s favor soon :)
17:46:14 <sarang> So that 1-2 transaction would drop by about 300 bytes
17:46:15 <sethsimmons> I don’t think you can do the recommended chain of tx0->Whirlpool->STONEWALL at less than 1.7kb
17:46:29 <sarang> the 2-2 drops by about 600 bytes
17:46:36 <sethsimmons> The chain I chose was fairly small and all utilized Segwit.
17:46:59 <sethsimmons> 1400b vs 2300b for a “private spend” 🧐
17:47:06 <sethsimmons> Love it
17:47:41 <sethsimmons> For costs I also gave Bitcoin the absolute cheapest costs possible in the estimate, and didn’t even count mixing fees/doxxic change in the estimation, and Monero is still 100x cheaper to transact in privately
17:48:08 <dEBRUYNE> sarang: As a side note, any timeline on the CLSAG blog going live?
17:48:28 <sarang> dEBRUYNE: I assumed we would wait until the audit report goes public, so we can link to it
17:48:38 <sarang> This should be coordinated with OSTIF, who haven't approved the most recent draft version
17:49:24 <sarang> It was recently updated to be more clear about preprint updates, so as not to cause any confusion to readers
18:29:54 <dEBRUYNE> sarang: I see, thanks
18:30:08 <dEBRUYNE> Is there any particular reason that they haven't approved the draft by theway?
18:30:39 <sarang> The auditors just recently sent the draft update
22:13:03 <needmoney90> What do the numbers look like if we push three digit ring sizes sarang?
22:13:08 <needmoney90> Say 100
22:20:39 <sarang> I can tell you in 15 minutes after a build
22:21:55 <sarang> needmoney90: I assume you mean with next-gen protocols?
22:23:22 <needmoney90> Yeah
22:23:35 <needmoney90> Well, you were just talking about a new reduction
22:23:43 <needmoney90> Didn't read far back enough to see if that was next hen
22:24:36 <needmoney90> Gen
22:25:19 <sarang> Oh, for sethsimmons
22:25:24 <sarang> that was CLSAG
22:25:27 <sarang> at current anon set size
22:26:55 <needmoney90> yeah whats the reductions for clsag on triple digits?
22:26:59 <needmoney90> Or for each of these formats for that matter
22:28:06 <sarang> CLSAG at that size would be unreasonably slow to verify
22:28:13 <sarang> and unreasonably large
22:33:25 <needmoney90> What protocols would be best suited to triple digit rings?
22:35:05 <sarang> Omniring, RCT3, Triptych, Arcturus
22:35:09 <sarang> Depends on what properties you want/need
22:35:26 <sarang> Multisig gets more complicated, batching depends on which you choose
22:36:01 <needmoney90> In your opinion which is best suited?
22:36:11 <needmoney90> For the tradeoffs
22:38:05 <sarang> So the spacetime tradeoffs are illustrated here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/312.pdf
22:38:12 <sarang> page 12
22:40:15 <sarang> It really depends what you want to optimize for needmoney90
22:40:37 <sarang> Updated RCT3 does great for size, but sucks in practice for time because of its padding requirements
22:41:40 <sarang> Arcturus does a good job for size, and is great for time
22:42:08 <sarang> No padding restrictions for inputs (but there is padding needed for ring size, as they all have)