Weekly meeting begins here at 17:00 UTC (about 15 minutes from now)

OK, let's get started with our meeting!

Agenda: monero-project/meta #498

First, GREETINGS

hello

Hi

GREETINGS

Are midipoet and/or Isthmus here?

yep

thanks for the ping. was making tea

great

Let's move right to ROUNDTABLE then

midipoet: you had posted in the agenda something to discuss

i did

i am not sure if people had managed to read/digest

am happy to provide context/answer questions about this

The gist is that you (midipoet) have been working with an ISO technical group regarding privacy and PII in blockchain applications

yes, that and some other WGs

and that I (sarang) have been providing some feedback on the working draft of a document for this

Fortunately these comments have halted the process for the document and allowed for a return to a comment period

However, you had suggested that I join the process formally

Unfortunately, my country's representation requires a steep annual fee to join (grrrrr)

I had questioned whether or not this should be considered a good value for the community and ecosystem

Hello

hi

"halted is not technically correct. As far as i know the document stands, with request for amendments/corrections/addendums. there is a 4 week process for this (of which 2 have passed)

The comment period for this document is only a couple of additional weeks, but I've provided midipoet with a detailed list of recommended changes

ok thanks midipoet

Isthmus mentioned in a subsequent comment to the agenda issue that his organization may be interested in sponsoring this fee

The membership agreement includes a possible fee waiver so I will help Sarang try that first

but I have not spoken with Isthmus directly about this option

Anyway, I am willing and interested to join the group and continue to provide technical feedback, but I do not like the steep pay-to-play nature of the U.S.'s involvement

sgp_: great idea. for the record, the convener John Greaves is well versed in open source, and as far as i know works for Consensys Health (for better or worse)

So if I understand correctly is the fee the only barrier?

Yes

and the fairly short timeline, I suppose

But again, I already have prepared a detailed list of recommended changes to correct many technical errors

also, bear in mind it seems to be a yearly fee. however, there is potential to get a reduced rate down to ~$1370 or even ~$400

The fee will not be a problem and you should join, though I will still try to get it waived

Note that I'm sure my affiliation would not be listed as "Monero" or anything like that, since I don't "work for" Monero

i think you just go under the national delegation (ie US - ITIC)

that's how it is done for the most, afaict

I mean only that the decision of whether or not to support this idea should not be made on the assumption that the name "Monero" gets to appear in standards-related materials

because it almost certainly will not

i don't even think the authors get names

*named

and I don't intend to favor Monero or any project in my partipation

*participation

it's really about ensuring the actual docs are as correct as we would like

Then what are we paying you for /s

right

sigh

and also about ensuring the perspectives of open source/decentralised/permissionless networks are catered for

My goal is to ensure technical correctness, a goal which I don't think was met by the initial draft that I saw

^ this is key

as for the most part, in these groups, they are not (though they are respected)

So how do folks think we should proceed?

Definitely join, though ask first to waive fee

It seems the fee structure assumes members are part of large rich companies

either waive or raise the fee

or a combination of both

i vote join, especially given the time, as there will be some intro/admin/setup to do on the side of ITIC. sarang will also have to learn the ISO IT system - which is HORRIBLE

o_0

midipoet: do you think there will be adequate time to properly raise my concerns and suggestions before the comment timeline has elapsed?

I had _many_ suggestions

<sarang> It seems the fee structure assumes members are part of large rich companies <--- Which is why the technical balance sarang will bring is so important

ArticMine: I agree

sarang: yes - but you will have to tone it down to a few key ones.

That will be tough

I thought the document was severely lacking

otherwise the WG wont have time to find consensus

and that is more important

If they add "cryptographic constructions and protocols are different" then I will be happy

and if they properly define Pedersen commitments...

no, i get it

the urgency is in there, not here

The risk with raising the fee is that I'd have to join now and pay out of pocket, and hope that such a CCS is accepted and funded, or otherwise sponsored by a group like Isthmus's company

(note that any such company would specifically _not_ have any say over how I participate)

I do not think the CCS process should be adjusted for this particular case

would you mind rolling it into the next three CCSs? to distribute the cost over the course of the year membership?

you would obviously have to absorb the direct cost immediately though...

I think it best to have a separate CCS, to make it very clear what the intent and purpose and cost are

The group claim that they do not prorate fees, and the membership period ends in November

It also appears like there is a separate mandatory fee of something like $300 on top of the $2200 (which is itself lowered for "small organizations")

Hey, driving through mountains, have internet for about 30 seconds every 5 minutes, lol.

Here was my comment: "I'm cool with sponsoring some or all of the ITIC membership. It's pretty standard for tech employers to set aside funds for personal professional/career development as part of a competitive benefits package. A privacy/Monero-savvy voice in ITIC is also likely to be beneficial for the wider community as well, so it seems like a win-win to me."

To clarify, I cannot offer Insight's benefit package to sarang. I was commenting that since sarang is employed by Monero, covering something like this would be in line with industry best practices.

So the cost is likely around $2500 maximum (all USD)

Isthmus: was I misinterpreting the nature of an Insight sponsorship?

Perhaps I misread

I didn't say anything about Insight

Sorry :- (

OK, then I definitely misread

Ignore everything I said earlier about Insight!

Also, I am not employed "by Monero" to be clear

yea yea you know what I mean

I read "I'm cool with sponsoring" as implying Insight, which was obviously not correct

Apologies for the confusion

I think we are all cool with this and are now talking in circles lol

Yes

OK, I'll join out of pocket, look into a fee reduction or waiver, and propose a CCS for the remainder

and hope for the best :D

i would be a bit wary of relying on the creation and fulfilment of a CCS before joining. that seems like it may take a week (min) in itself

i understand why sarang does not want to pay out of pocket however

Yes, I mean join out of pocket and _then_ propose the CCS, to avoid missing the timeline for comment

+1 to sgp/sarang/artic

The CCS process takes time, and should not be rushed for this

sarang: ah understood. yes, then i agree.

OK thanks midipoet for your involvement in this standards process

This is the time to get involved!

Moving on

Isthmus: you had posted some material to the agenda

Care to discuss now?

Namely, Isthmus referenced this CCS update: repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/c…als/-/merge_requests/142#note_10181

I think this is fascinating, and commented that I might recommend more clearly labeling the risk assessments to make it _exceptionally_ clear what is vulnerable _today_ versus what would be vulnerable given a hypothetical future quantum adversary

on the assumption that graphs, charts, plots, etc. will be shared out of context and could be misinterpreted, either accidentally or intentionally

agreed with your comment sarang

e.g. the light-red category (labeled 1) could easily be misinterpreted as meaning "vulnerable today" when it's not the case

the scale also seems weird; is 6 the highest protection or is 4?

i know the answer to this one. 6 is higher than 4

It appears that Isthmus may be away right now, but that chart is full of interesting information

I really look forward to the full repots

s/repots/reports

goot bot

I've been working on Triptych/Arcturus optimizations, BP+, some detailed lit review relating to interesting hash-based attacks, some MRL-0010 analysis relevant to the recent swap proposal

Nothing quite as succinct as Isthmus's chart =p

Does anyone else have research of interest to share with the channel?

Yes

Please go ahead!

I have a short update on issue 70 monero-project/research-lab #70

(Note that I will have to duck out of the meeting at 17:40 UTC for an appointment, so please continue/conclude without me if needed)

I reviewed the comments and there is a likely change making the longterm median a floor for the short term median

I am looking at the spam risk implications of this first

that is all

OK thanks ArticMine!

Does anyone else wish to share anything of interest?

If not, I suppose we can go ahead and adjourn early; discussion can of course continue, but logs posted to the agenda will end here

Thanks to everyone for joining!

how is surae doing?

If you’re getting these messages, I’ve hit a spot of reception, w00t!

Please remember that our research is strictly focused on how Monero’s mechanisms are impacted by known *algorithms* and has nothing to do with the timeline for quantum computers.

A cell value of “1” simply means that {{column title}} could impact the current mechanism for {{row name}}.

Also, don’t think too hard about the chart - it’s not a public deliverable, just a progress tracker for purpose of CCS milestone.

Writing up the explanations for each cell takes a lot of time/pages, and is what we are currently working on :- )

Also, the color scale is not linear, so 4 and 6 are not orderable.

I should have used letters, not numbers (which imply a scale), so I’ll take the blame & shame on this one. Sorry to be accidentally misleading

kinghat[m]: refer to twitter.com/BGGoodell

Isthmus: all good, it;s an awesome draft haha

i guess alive if good 👍️

is*

hey ya'll, I'm Isthmus partner

for the pq-monero project

I have internet and can answer any brief questions ya'll might have on it

Why's that moneromooo

Shor: thanks for being here!

sarang: < Shor> hey ya'll, I'm Isthmus partner

sarang: ^^^^

lmao

Isthmus: got it, but individual charts/plots _will_ be shared without context