14:07:49 <Lyza> is there a conceivable way to have multiple real spends in a ring. Like say 2/22 instead of 1/11
14:08:06 <Lyza> I guess I should ask if there's a known sol'n
14:10:00 <Rucknium[m]> Known solution to which problem?
14:13:11 <moneromooo> IIRC artcurus has rings with more than one signer.
14:13:35 <moneromooo> (though its security was found wanting IIRC)
14:14:55 <luigi1111w> of course it's possible to just duplicate the rings, but I'm assuming you want more space efficiency than that
14:15:03 <luigi1111w> and probably compute
14:15:17 <Rucknium[m]> Oh, about XMR-BCH atomic swaps? I talked with kayabaNerve and they think that it is probably possible. BCH fixed transaction malleability through non-SegWit means.
14:16:25 <Rucknium[m]> See https://bitcoincashresearch.org/t/monero-bch-atomic-swaps/545
14:18:18 <Lyza> I'm not even thinking of space, just that, having two rings 1/11 seems to reveal more information than having 2/22, even if with 2/22 you *know* there's two real ones
14:19:18 <Lyza> I'm not sure if it can be determined from outside how many 'real' spends there are tho, and if not then I guess allowing 2/22 would mean not being able to really enforce ring size by consensus
14:21:58 <Lyza> mmmm, now I'm wondering if the current protocol would allow a 2/11 transaction (spending two real outputs in a single ring)
14:22:32 <Lyza> but it sounds like nah
14:23:40 <luigi1111w> I just told you how it's possible...
14:23:49 <luigi1111w> you certainly know how many real spends though
14:24:13 <Lyza> sorry I guess I didn't follow what you meant by duplicate the rings
14:24:53 <luigi1111w> two identical 22 member rings, sign one with one key, sign the other with the other
14:25:44 <Lyza> ohhh I see I see, interesting
14:27:04 <Rucknium[m]> Is the Matrix-IRC bridge broken? Seems like Matrix can see IRC, but not the reverse.
14:28:16 <luigi1111w> you mean like see you? or something else
14:28:50 <Rucknium[m]> Oops, Ok I guess my comments were just ignored haha
14:29:32 <luigi1111w> :D