April 15, 2019

**<sarang>** Let's begin our meeting!

**<sarang>** 1. GREETINGS

**<sarang>** Hi

**<[-mugatu-]>** o/

**<sarang>** Quiet day today…

**<sarang>** But I suppose we can still move to 2. ROUNDTABLE

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

**<suraeNoether>** sure, my cat is missing and i want to go look for her, so i'm going to make this quick

**<sarang>** :(

**<sarang>** Understood

**<suraeNoether>** CLSAG signatures are fast and small, they are so fast and small that my naive colored-coin approach could support two assets and still be faster and smaller than our present MLSAG scheme

**<suraeNoether>** i'm not recommending coloring monero, but commenting on overall speed, it's nuts

**<suraeNoether>** however, as sarang mentioned, there is a key image problem i'm looking into

**<suraeNoether>** it's possible rectifying them will cost us some of those gains

**<sarang>** Yeah, I don't think a straightforward LSAG reduction works here

**<suraeNoether>** in the meantime, i'm handing CLSAG off to sarang for at least 7 days so i can focus on MRL11

**<sarang>** But I wonder if a redefinition of the security requirements to accommodate the new linking will be sufficient

**<suraeNoether>** since we're rounding the corner on that, it's my top priority, and i want to get CLSAG out of sight for a few days

**<sarang>** righto

**<suraeNoether>** okay, i'll be back later today, hopefully with suraecat

**<sarang>** Thanks, and best of luck with your search

**<sarang>** I completed the building blocks for a simple Lelantus transaction flow (insecure example code in agenda)

**<sarang>** and am in contact with the paper's author to discuss some privacy aspects of the construction

**<sarang>** the CLSAG example code has been updated to reflect some changes

**<sarang>** and, as suraeNoether said, still working on proper formalization, which is trickier than expected

**<sarang>** The output selection algorithm discussed here still has an open PR from moneromooo that needs eyeballs

**<sarang>** PR 5389

**<needmoney90>** Hi

**<sarang>** yo

**<needmoney90>** Will lurk mostly.

**<sarang>** Does anyone else have research to share?

**<needmoney90>** Just announcing presence

**<sarang>** Otherwise we can keep waxing poetic about CLSAG definitions

**<sgp_>** here now

**<sarang>** :/

**<sarang>** Hi suraeNoether

**<sarang>** sgp_:

**<sarang>** bah, silly autocomplete

**<moneromooo>** I have these multi user txes going in the background, and I am wondering whether the 'a' values can be reuesd for multiple outputs.

**<sarang>** Remind me what these values are/

**<needmoney90>** What's the status on M-of-N multisig?

**<moneromooo>** The idea is to make 16 actual outs for the "same" logical output, so they get shuffled as new outputs are added.

**<sarang>** (our notation is often inconsistent)

**<moneromooo>** And I don't know whether it's safe to keep those. I assume sharing them with other usesr of the same tx is not good.

**<dEBRUYNE>** <suraeNoether> however, as sarang mentioned, there is a key image problem i'm looking into <= This is referring to CSLAG right?

**<sarang>** dEBRUYNE: yes

**<sarang>** there are no such issues with MLSAG

**<dEBRUYNE>** All right, thanks for clarifying

**<sarang>** The problem refers to the fact that trying to reduce CLSAG to LSAG with an aggregated key yields the wrong key image

**<moneromooo>** a is the random secret keys generated at proive time to create the pseudoOuts.

**<sarang>** Hmm ok

**<sarang>** You asked me to review this earlier, and it completely slipped my mind

**<sarang>** I'll look for the code snippet you sent in PM

**<sarang>** to ensure I don't get wrong the terms you're referring to

**<moneromooo>** ty

**<sarang>** sgp_: did you have something you wished to discuss too?

**<sgp_>** I don't believe so

**<sarang>** Well, this meeting is turning out to be quite short :D

**<sarang>** moneromooo: anything specific, aside from the reuse question you posed?

**<sarang>** (to discuss here, I mean)

**<moneromooo>** Not at the moment I think.

**<sarang>** OK, I suppose we can move right along then

**<sarang>** to 3. QUESTIONS and 4. ACTION ITEMS

**<sarang>** While suraeNoether continues working on matching/churn via MRL-0011, I have several things for the week

**<sarang>** Now that CLSAG reduction to LSAG is proving so problematic, I want to see if definition modifications for the LSAG proofs will suffice for our use case

**<sarang>** I'll be checking on moneromooo's question shortly (apologies for letting that slip by)

**<sarang>** as well as more work on Lelantus transaction flows

**<dEBRUYNE>** sarang: Have you consulted RandomRun regarding this problem btw?

**<sarang>** suraeNoether and I have been in contact with him throughout the development process

**<sarang>** I don't believe this problem has practical effects on CLSAG's security, only in the complexity of the formalization

**<sarang>** Any other questions or action items on people's minds?

**<dEBRUYNE>** I see, so it does not render the scheme infeasible?

**<sarang>** Heh, depends

**<sarang>** If we end up not being able to prove secure under proper definitions, that's a bit of a quandry

**<sarang>** but in the worst case, we decide not to adopt the scheme, and are right back to where we are now

**<dEBRUYNE>** True, better safe than sorry I guess :p

**<sarang>** However, the space and time savings are so compelling that it's worth the effort

**<sarang>** ~25% space savings and 15% time savings for a 2-2 transaction

**<sarang>** (in the signature portion)

**<needmoney90>** Not bad

**<sarang>** OK, any last questions before we formally adjourn?

**<sarang>** Righto, in that case, we are adjourned. Discussion can of course continue

**<sarang>** Logs will be posted shortly to the GitHub agenda issue

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