12:14:10 <yanmaani> Is doubling a point irreversible?
12:31:51 <UkoeHB> multiply by the modular inverse of 2
12:37:39 <yanmaani> Are there any irreversible operations that can be done on a point, that can also be done on the scalar?
12:38:25 <yanmaani> e.g. f(k) = k', f(K) = K', and k'G = K'
12:45:48 <UkoeHB> not that I know of
16:44:59 <UkoeHB> I started collecting perf test results today. Is there anyone who likes data analysis and wants to take a crack at it? I will have a huge number of results (> 500 probably) that look like this:
16:44:59 <UkoeHB> ```
16:44:59 <UkoeHB> CLSAG || Size (bytes): 1488 || batch size: 1 || inputs: 1 || outputs: 2 || rangeproof split: 0 || ref set size (2^4): 16
16:44:59 <UkoeHB> test_mock_tx<mock_tx::MockTxCLSAG>      1636129878 50 8685172.000000 8846827.000000 8775139.920000 8773286.000000 31912.109430 0.058095 8685172 8731500 8749842 8762462 8769708 8772274 8779010 8791740 8801171 8809290 8846827
16:44:59 <UkoeHB> ```
16:45:00 <UkoeHB> If there are no takers, I can do it manually lol :)
16:48:03 <Rucknium[m]> UkoeHB: I can do it, but I need a bit of context. Such as: What do these numbers mean?
16:53:46 <UkoeHB> The first line is test parameters, the second line is test results (from `TimingsDatabase::instance` in the monero `src/common/timings.h` class).
16:54:31 <UkoeHB> size isn't a test parameter, it is just the tx size given the other parameters
16:57:55 <Rucknium[m]> UkoeHB: I see. It's summary statistics. What is the number of observations? 50?
16:58:12 <UkoeHB> right
16:58:38 <UkoeHB> can change if necessary; the stdev is really low on gingeropolous's test machine
17:00:02 <Rucknium[m]> The parameters are "batch size", "inputs", "outputs", "rangeproof split", and "ref set size"?
17:00:18 <UkoeHB> Also the tx type, CLSAG in this case
17:00:56 <Rucknium[m]> Ideally we'd want to test across multiple machines with various hardware and OS specs, I'd think. But this is a good first stab
17:00:58 <UkoeHB> and ref set decomposition (the 2^4 bit, i.e. n^m), which is relevant for other tx types
17:01:07 <UkoeHB> yeah
17:02:30 <Rucknium[m]> Ok I'll do it. Just post the data when ready :)
17:02:37 <UkoeHB> thank you!
19:27:34 <Rucknium[m]> UkoeHB: What are the research questions we are trying to answer with this data analysis, by the way?
19:28:38 <Rucknium[m]> I suppose it's "what are the tradeoffs between different parameters?", but maybe you can be more specific.
20:21:35 <UkoeHB> There are a couple things I am thinking about.
20:21:35 <UkoeHB> - comparisons between CLSAG, Triptych, Seraphis variants
20:21:35 <UkoeHB> - tradeoffs between size/verification cost for different design choices; these tradeoffs are multivariable - one choice may be relatively better at few in/outs (for example), while another is relatively better at many in/outs
20:21:35 <UkoeHB> - if there are design choices that are worse in all of size/verification/feature-set, then I want to eliminate those from consideration
20:21:36 <UkoeHB> Rather than 'research questions', these are more like 'engineering questions'. These performance numbers are meant to be useful for an engineer trying to decide what to implement. It is more a data-visualization effort than a conclusion-finding effort :).
20:27:23 <Rucknium[m]> Got it
20:40:09 <ArticMine> I have some questions. For CLSAG are we talking BP+ namely after the HF? Also I presume ring size 16 if we assume there is where the consensus is going. It will also helpful to include a tx with 2 in and 2 out since it is the most common tx
20:40:42 <ArticMine> Thanks
20:46:54 <UkoeHB> yes
20:47:02 <UkoeHB> yes to all