| 24 Apr 2024 |
 m-relay | <tevador> On-chain, they are indistinguishable. | 18:17:09 |
| m-relay | <rbrunner> Only think how much confusion those lowly "integrated addresses" sometimes produced ... | 18:18:22 |
| m-relay | <tevador> No, old addresses would stay the same, 2 keys and base58. | 18:18:25 |
| m-relay | <rbrunner> And would we get hardware wallets to support two very different address types? | 18:19:07 |
| m-relay | <UkoeHB> IMO there is a risk that if FMCP doesn't pan out and we don't migrate to Seraphis key images, we won't see any ring size improvements maybe ever. Seraphis gives Grootle proofs as a fall-back. | 18:19:11 |
| m-relay | <tevador> If FCMP++ doesn't pan out, we can still migrate to Seraphis key images later. But we can't migrate back to the compatible version. | 18:20:13 |
| m-relay | <tevador> There can be a gradual phase-out of old addresses instead of a sudden invalidation. | 18:21:10 |
| m-relay | <UkoeHB> The problem comes with implementation. Refactoring the Seraphis library to support a different approach might be a substantial effort, so once you fork it needs to be a solid plan. | 18:21:12 |
| m-relay | <rbrunner> Anyway, overall I think nobody finds something that prevents us to at least start work on those FCMPs as soon as possible. | 18:22:47 |
 Rucknium | IMHO, having a unified privacy pool is not a huge benefit because tx outputs turn over so frequently. Maybe there is tech debt reasons to do it, but I don't see a really strong privacy reason if there is a longer delay and/or worse performance with a unified pool. | 18:23:11 |
| m-relay | <rbrunner> Where we will finally end is another question, quite some time in the future. | 18:23:22 |
 one-horse-wagon | kayabanerve: So what is the next step you need to take to get the FCMP protocol underway today? | 18:23:32 |
 kayabanerve | *Personally*, I am fine waiting to see tevador's address format and continue the discussion next week. We don't need an immediate answer. | 18:23:39 |
| m-relay | <UkoeHB> tevador: Are you starting a new gist for Jamtis-C (Jamtis over Cryptonote)? | 18:23:53 |
| m-relay | <tevador> Yes, new gist. | 18:24:06 |
| m-relay | <UkoeHB> Ok, I will read when you are ready | 18:24:25 |
| m-relay | <tevador> At least the Development CCS should be merged ASAP. | 18:25:26 |
| m-relay | <rbrunner> I mean seems to me nobody is seriously considering anymore a future Monero without FCMPs - given they "work out" of course. | 18:25:48 |
 jeffro256 | why development before research? | 18:25:48 |
| Rucknium | Can some of the gist links be posted to https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/100 ? Gists never have memorable URLs. | 18:26:06 |
| m-relay | <tevador> The "Research" is basically audits. | 18:26:17 |
| jeffro256 | fair | 18:26:31 |
 chaser | In reply to @rucknium:monero.social
Can some of the gist links be posted to https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/100 ? Gists never have memorable URLs. will do so after the meeting | 18:26:55 |
| chaser | rbrunner: the long-term future of Monero has to be FCMP, one way or another. I can envision ring size increases as short/mid-term temporary stepping stones to improve privacy until we get to FCMP. | 18:29:22 |
| Rucknium | You already added two pluses to FCMP. Another proposal will have to be called something else. Three pluses are against the rules AFAIK :P | 18:31:49 |
 ArticMine | In reply to @chaser:monero.social
rbrunner: the long-term future of Monero has to be FCMP, one way or another. I can envision ring size increases as short/mid-term temporary stepping stones to improve privacy until we get to FCMP. I agree | 18:31:57 |
| chaser | well, we did discuss that this path may have terminal obstacles, e.g. not being able to prove the soundness of GBPs. | 18:32:00 |
| jeffro256 | In reply to @rucknium:monero.social
You already added two pluses to FCMP. Another proposal will have to be called something else. Three pluses are against the rules AFAIK :P Just like how valve isn't allowed to make a game with a 3 in its name | 18:32:33 |
| chaser | In reply to @kayabanerve:matrix.org
So there may be terminal obstacles per our current ability, but GBPs alone are not. got it, I stand corrected (and happily so). what are some actual terminal ones? | 18:33:58 |
| Rucknium | kayabanerve: Your PDF says that the two alternatives still need security proofs, right? | 18:34:09 |
