14:43:19 <wernervasquez[m]> <gingeropolous> "is it possible to roll jamtis..." <- Is your question can a jamtis style address be used with the ringct algorithms "with no additional functionality beyond current" or "with additional jamtis functionality"?
14:44:02 <gingeropolous>   with no additional functionality beyond current. 
16:04:44 <wernervasquez[m]> <gingeropolous> "  with no additional functionali..." <- I find that to be an interesting problem. I will look into it and either propose a way to do so, or learn more about why there is no reasonable way to do it.
16:12:19 <UkoeHB> Isn’t that contradictory? It wouldn’t be jamtis without jamtis functionality.
16:34:35 <wernervasquez[m]> My interpretation of the question is can we publish valid jamtis style addresses, but feed it into rct machinary to spend/receive. The *minimum* benefit there being that when seraphis is implemented, everyone can keep using the valid jamtis address they had been using. But more functionality will be available. And *perhaps* some additional jamtis benefits could be used as well.
16:35:43 <UkoeHB> no that is impossible
16:36:46 <UkoeHB> seraphis addresses have generators not present in rct addresses
18:36:03 <wernervasquez[m]> UkoeHB: The jamtis scheme has three public keys. Two of them use G. One uses U and X (the one with the spend key). Couldnt rct be adapted to use U and X instead of G in places where the spend key is used?
18:58:26 <UkoeHB> if you made a really big effort with new cryptography, yes probably
18:58:49 <UkoeHB> but it isn't possible with current proofs
19:56:46 <wernervasquez[m]> Suppose a sender used K1 from jamtis in place of the public spend key in RCT. What if the sender publishes two ephemeral public keys: rU and rX. I think the reciever could remove the U portion. Then go on to use rX in place of rG in standard RCT algorithms with an additional proof showing they removed the U portion.
20:14:54 <tevador> You could in theory send a RCT output to a jamtis address by only using the keys K2 and K3. But the recipient would have to use a non-standard key derivation to detect such outputs.
20:48:22 <wernervasquez[m]> That would be easier as they both only use G. I am imagining thats what ginger was getting at. Could a small tweak allow jamtis addresses to be used prior to Seraphis? 
20:52:58 <wernervasquez[m]> The follow up questions would be "why", "how best to", and "should". At a minimum, users could adjust to the new address format. But, perhaps much more could be accomplished without getting complicated? Could view tags be used? Could RIDs be used?
20:54:00 <wernervasquez[m]> gingeropolous: ^ did I read your question right? Or have I gone off to another tangent entirely?
22:05:44 <training4[m]> Hello everyone.