Just caught up with the channel

Regarding BP+, I revisited some operation counts and do not expect that we would see the kinds of verification time improvements suggested by the CCS proposal

Verification should be marginally faster at best

That being said, the space savings are immediate and known

aw...

It's not entirely clear why the proposers saw such an improvement, but I suspect they didn't account for all common generators like we do

(and like we would for BP+)

However, verification would certainly not be any _slower_

I'll write up some details and add them to the CCS to see if the proposers can help me understand why they saw the improvements they did

(this is why I prefer operation counts... they used entirely different libraries)

u think thats legit jwinterm ?

Doesn't support d-LRS natively

Therefore doesn't work with commitments

The protocol presently requires a 2-LRS, not merely an LRS

^ jwinterm gingeropolous

gingeropolous, if I could answer that question I'd be a mathemagician

Jwinterm it's okay that's why we pay people to do the mathstronomy and mathstrology for us

I think one of those is pseudoscience though