March 11, 2019

**<sarang>** Our meeting begins presently

**<sarang>** Let's go ahead and get started. Agenda is here: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/314

**<suraeNoether>** howdy everyone

**<sarang>** 1. GREETINGS

**<sarang>** hi

**<MRL-discord> <Isthmus>** Hello! Biking, in soon.

**<parasew[m]>** hello!

**<sarang>** Let's recap 2. NETWORK UPGRADE

**<sarang>** Kudos to everyone for a successful first upgrade

**<sarang>** I don't recall when the second was slated to occur, since block arrival was stunted

**<sarang>** Any thoughts on the upgrade after the fact?

**<xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar>** Hi

**<sarang>** I believe it was dEBRUYNE who wanted an upcoming meeting specifically to talk more deeply about the future of PoW

**<parasew[m]>** anyone monitored the "old chain"? if there have been this large amount of asics on there, and not turned off it should be visible

**<sarang>** I believe sgp_ ran some blackball numbers on it

**<sarang>** and found essentially nothing of interest

**<sarang>** but as far as hashrate, I am not sure

**<sgp_>** yeah, no chain reactions so far, very few known spent outputs through reused key images

**<sgp_>** impact on network privacy so far is essentially 0

**<sarang>** sgp_: were the key image reuse numbers for only v9 and v10?

**<sgp_>** yes, just those two

**<sarang>** great, thanks

**<sarang>** Relating to this, we can also introduce 3. NEXT POINT RELEASE

**<sarang>** Not all desired non-consensus changes made it in to this release, so Sometime Soon (tm) will be a point release

**<sarang>** BP optimizations will be one nice addition

**<sarang>** I would like output selection to also be included… we talked about it at length at an earlier meeting

**<dEBRUYNE>** sarang: Correct. It's a topic with a lot of depth that requires an extensive discussion imo

**<sarang>** suraeNoether: do you have a current recommendation for output selection?

**<suraeNoether>** i'm running into problems testing the matching code, based on this problem too

**<sarang>** Here is a discussion of the different algorithms: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/307#issuecomment-466514757

**<suraeNoether>** iirc the output lineup method performs quite well

**<sarang>** I prefer it among the others that were tested

**<sarang>** But it's a change that deserves more than two thumbs-up :)

**<suraeNoether>** there is no optimal solution, but some solutions are better than others and the output lineup method is more reasonable than the other proposals, and i have no new proposals to make (yet)

**<sarang>** I updated the sim code (link in agenda) to examine the output weighting in more details

**<sarang>** Hopefully the BP optimizations are less contenious

**<suraeNoether>** uhm i think i have one possible proposal that i want to chat about with you by side channel to hash out some details

**<sarang>** sure

**<sarang>** We should have a formal recommendation before whatever date is set for the point release code freeze

**<sarang>** Anything else relating to the point upgrade that ought to be discussed?

**<sarang>** ping moneromooo perhaps

**<xmrmatterbridge> <rehrar>** I just want timelines. Nothing to say on content.

**<moneromooo>** hi

**<moneromooo>** What's the question ? :)

**<moneromooo>** I don't know about any date. Depends when we get all the stuff on master ready really.

**<sarang>** Anything relating to the next point release you'd like us to discuss?

**<moneromooo>** None that come to mind right now.

**<sarang>** ty

**<sarang>** In that case, let's move to 4. ROUNDTABLE

**<sarang>** suraeNoether: care to go first?

**<sarang>** OK, I can go first instead

**<suraeNoether>** ok

**<sarang>** aha, go ehead

**<suraeNoether>** heh

**<suraeNoether>** Well, my simulations for the matching code are to the point where i'm running a matching on some test data now to generate a confusion matrix.

**<suraeNoether>** i'm also editing the manuscript describing the whole process

**<suraeNoether>** one of the problems i'm running into is actually simulating our output selection in part because it's not clear which direction we are going yet

**<suraeNoether>** and it occurred to me that this could help inform our choice of output selection by seeing if one of these possibilities makes matching easier or harder

**<sarang>** IMO matching expect spend with proper weighting seems optimal enough from a purely timing perspective

**<sarang>** (leaving out questions of binning etc)

**<suraeNoether>** when i say easy or hard i don't mean in terms of time, because as we've seen matching is essentially super duper fast

**<suraeNoether>** i mean in terms of false negative and false positive rates

**<suraeNoether>** but you are 100% on that

**<sarang>** aw shucks

**<suraeNoether>** i'm working on a variety of other side things but i'm shooting for this matching paper to be complete and published some time in the next 2 months

**<sarang>** Excellent

**<suraeNoether>** if we get more speakers for the konferenco, then i won't be speaking, but otherwise i will probably be presenting on this at the konferenco

**<sarang>** Neat; anything else of interest to share?

**<suraeNoether>** that's all i have today, thanks!

**<sarang>** Righto

**<sarang>** I have a few things

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** The line up is looking great btw! Fantastic effort for a first konferenco

**<suraeNoether>** catching up on lots of reaidng in algebraic geometry :D

**<sarang>** First, my next FFS/CCS will be posted soon

**<sarang>** As was discussed here, in -community, and elsewhere, the request will be for immediate payout

**<sarang>** This means both donors and I know the actual value of the donations

**<sarang>** Since this is a big change, any questions or comments on it?

**<sarang>** (presumably suraeNoether will be doing the same arrangement)

**<suraeNoether>** i'm in support of this, and i will indeed be mimicking this

**<sarang>** Folks who do not trust us to run with the money should, of course, not donate

**<sarang>** But my hope is that our records have shown we're good for it :D

**<binaryFate>** happy we came to that solution eventually, hopefully will be better for your guys

**<sarang>** Thanks to binaryFate and others for agreeing to this change

**<binaryFate>** yes the idea is that donors being careful should discourage randomers to do the same

**<sarang>** The CCS posting will _very_ clearly state the arrangement, so there is no confusion

**<binaryFate>** If you figure out the markdown

**<sarang>** Yes indeed

**<moneromooo>** Technically, it's within the existing rules as stated: one milestone, which consists of "sarang starts working" :)

**<sarang>** Second, the paper that suraeNoether and I have been collaborating with external researchers on (DLSAG et al.) is in final review now

**<sarang>** We've been asked not to share it before it's released as a preprint, as a courtesy to all authors

**<suraeNoether>** *nod*

**<sarang>** It has some great details on useful constructions that I'm sure we'll discuss at length after the preprint goes to IACR

**<sarang>** it'll be submitted for a conference as well

**<sarang>** Third, I wrote up some additional tests and code for Bulletproofs MPC

**<dEBRUYNE>** sarang: How does this work if the proposal is not fully funded yet when your period starts?

**<sarang>** Two options: either the bulk is paid out and it stays open until filled

**<sarang>** or it all sits there until fully funded

**<sarang>** I prefer the first, but am open to discussion

**<sarang>** Regarding Bulletproofs MPC, real_or_random had some great thoughts on this before the meeting (but I won't put him on the spot)

**<suraeNoether>** i imagine that the important part is laying out which way it goes in the proposal

**<sarang>** the question has to do with what a malicious player can do

**<sarang>** We chatted about the fact that an evil player could try to pull what amounts to a cancellation of partial proof elements, effectively setting the inputs to the hash that generates a F-S challenge

**<sarang>** I couldn't find a way that this could be used as an exploit, aside from obviously generated an invalid proof

**<sarang>** but the security proofs for BPs do require that F-S challenges are uniform

**<sarang>** I had neglected that point when I had thought about this earlier

**<sarang>** My strong suspicion is that proof elements are still uniformly distributed in the presence of a dishonest challenge due to the prover's randomness, and that you still get zk in this case (but not provably)

**<sarang>** Moral: if we do anything in the future that requires/desires this scheme, these things would need to be considered

**<sarang>** Any questions/comments relating to this?

**<sarang>** allrightythen

**<suraeNoether>** i think we should continue to ponder it and write something up formally about the BP MPC schemes

**<sarang>** Well that's the thing… there's really nothing to write formally

**<sarang>** You can probably solve all the theoretical woes by having all players commit to their proof elements before multicasting them

**<sarang>** then an honest prover is guaranteed uniform F-S challenges

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** Sorry but I'm a little out of the loop here. What exactly are BP MPC for? something to do with multisig with BP?

**<suraeNoether>** it's nice to think about collectively computing BP range proofs, but I'm still v curious about the coinjoin approach that we are considering on the larger scale.

**<sarang>** Ideally, untrusted parties could generate single BPs for outputs

**<suraeNoether>** after all, it's hard to even think about threat models unless we know how these things will be used in practice

**<sarang>** Sure, this is all pie-in-the-sky right now

**<suraeNoether>** learninandlurkin: collaborating with friends to compute a range proof for a coinjoin style transaction, so that the participants don't reveal their amounts to each other

**<sarang>** But yes, the threat model would be very different depending on how the rounds go

**<sarang>** Finally, suraeNoether had shown me this a while back: https://lelantus.io/lelantus.pdf

**<suraeNoether>** agreed on the commit-and-reveal; expensive but usually does the trick to ensure participants can't be rewound inappropriately

**<sarang>** An interesting application of some of the fundamentals behind Bulletproofs and the old StringCT scheme

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** So… allowing multi-input transactions where each user doesn't know the amounts of the other inputs? Sounds useful

**<suraeNoether>** learninandlurkin hence our interest in nailing down threat models *nod*

**<sarang>** I've been playing around with some of the math in that paper to see what nuggets could be extracted

**<suraeNoether>** oh i had a brief thing to point out: isthmus and n3ptune at noncesense-research-lab answered one of my requests and we now have a complete empirical distribution of number of inputs and outputs per transaction

**<suraeNoether>** forgot to mention this:

**<sarang>** Neato, where is this distribution to be found?

**<suraeNoether>** https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/tx_in_out_distribution

**<suraeNoether>** the data surprised me

**<dEBRUYNE> <sarang>** I prefer the first, but am open to discussion <= I'd be OK with the first, but perhaps it would be most convenient to use a rounded number

**<dEBRUYNE>** e.g. if 211 XMR is funded, pay out 200

**<sarang>** You won't believe what's in tx_distribution_in.csv!

**<dEBRUYNE>** Mebbe malware

**<dEBRUYNE>** :P

**<suraeNoether>** super heavy tails for one thing, and a rootkit for another

**<sarang>** dEBRUYNE: perhaps a full payout at date X, and then a second payout at either date Y or completion, whichever comes first

**<binaryFate> <sarang>** I prefer the first, but am open to discussion <– donors will have no incentive to fund in time, it will drag till the end of the period

**<sarang>** binaryFate: how would you do it?

**<binaryFate>** I like the incentive to donors of you proposing something and getting to work on it only if funded

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** I imagine coinjoining going on would really complicate output selection. Or is there some idea where they work off each other to get rid of heuristics?

**<sarang>** Depends on how timely it is

**<suraeNoether>** learningandlurkin coinjoin brings a whole new nightmare to the party. does everyone bring their own mix-ins? certainly nothing is to stop a malicious party from coinjoining with a bunch of badly selected mix-ins

**<moneromooo>** A ring is one person only. Fake output selection is untouched.

**<sarang>** Well each input signs with its own ring

**<sarang>** ^

**<moneromooo>** That person makes their own ring, yes. Otherwise others would know which is the real out.

**<sarang>** The benefit is breaking the assumption of one-party control of outputs and the link to the input rings

**<binaryFate>** What about simple attack of using the same 10 decoys as one of the other participants?

**<suraeNoether>** ^

**<msvb-mob>** Is parasew, nevvton, or txmr in the channel?

**<binaryFate>** mmm you don't know which are decoys, nevermind ^^

**<sarang>** If this moves forward, hopefully we can determine the necessary practical security for BPs

**<sarang>** If we can't aggregate, they'd have to be separate for each output

**<suraeNoether>** my beard is getting very thoroughly stroked this morning. much to think about…

**<sarang>** I believe we'd get practical security without player commitments, but not provable

**<sarang>** Anyway: does anyone else wish to share interesting research before we close?

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** Yes it sounds like the interplay between coinjoin and ringsigs will require some diagrams for me to ever understand. Could get complicated.

**<suraeNoether>** i think you would want a commit-and-reveal stage for everyone to see the ring members to prevent malicious ring intersection in the coinjoin

**<sarang>** MoneroCoinJoin: an easy 14-round process!

**<suraeNoether>** isthmus and i have been chatting about methods of extracting the true spend-time distribution from the monero blockchain without knowing exactly which outputs have been spent

**<suraeNoether>** that's a very nascent conversation, though I think it'll end up being a very straightforward project

**<sarang>** Discussions in #noncesense-research-lab I presume?

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** so, truish spend-time distribution

**<binaryFate>** Are there regular meetings on this or just continuous discussion? I had been working on this at some point and have some code around aiming to graphically show the real spend distribution

**<sarang>** I've seen a few informal conversations in #noncesense-research-lab but didn't know if suraeNoether had something more formal

**<suraeNoether>** binaryFate: ah, no, this has been a casual conversation by side channel, but there is clearly interest

**<suraeNoether>** i'll start blabbing about it in here more publicly

**<sarang>** In the interest of time, let's review 6. ACTION ITEMS and then close to continue discussion afterword

**<binaryFate>** Ok don't hesitate to ping me on this

**<sarang>** I will be posting my CCS request soon, tidying up the output selection stuff for a recommendation, getting the DLSAG application paper reviewed and out the door, and playing around with that Lelantus paper when/if I get a chance

**<sarang>** suraeNoether: ?

**<suraeNoether>** CCS request, working on simulations and measurable numbers for matching, and looking into using our matching code to answer questions about output selection

**<sarang>** excellent

**<suraeNoether>** also casual github maintenance

**<sarang>** Any final questions or remarks before we adjourn?

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** once you guys have made a recommendation for output selection

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** and it gets implemented, what's the next big focus?

**<sarang>** There will be much to consider in the realm of refund and payment channels

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** Ooh yes the refund ideas from a while back were really interesting

**<sarang>** and some aspects of output selection, like linking spends across rings in txns, is not solved yet

**<xmrmatterbridge> <learninandlurkin>** Seems like a logical next area of research

**<sarang>** and if coinjoin works out, there will be a lot to consider with that

**<sarang>** Also transaction relay and network-level anonymity stuff that's still in progress

**<sarang>** To quote the Simpsons: "like the cleaning of a house… IT NEVER ENDS"

**<sarang>** But on that note, our meeting does end

**<sarang>** Thanks to everyone for attending. We're adjourned; let the conversations continue

Post tags : Dev Diaries, Community, Cryptography, Monero Research Lab