06:16:34 <plowsof> Bulletproofs++ creator Liam has responded:
06:16:34 <plowsof> "I am working on a draft for conference submission now, hopefully will be done soon. I have written security proofs for the protocols in the new draft and reorganized the paper somewhat to simplify the security proofs. I'm really glad you guys are interested in my work. I'll let you know when I finish the new draft."
06:16:34 <plowsof> UkoeHB jberman Rucknium 
10:26:01 <monerobull[m]> Conference as in Monerokon?
13:36:48 <nioc> considering the changes coming in the BP++ paper including security proofs, should the CCS to review the BP++ paper or the review itself wait for the updated paper?
14:02:59 <selsta> Makes sense to wait for the updated paper.
15:17:51 <Rucknium[m]> Yes, wait. I had complained about the paper structure and lack of defined math proofs so I am happy.
15:18:31 <Rucknium[m]> monerobull: MoneroKon doesn't do technical review of papers. He's probably talking about a different conference.
15:20:01 <monerobull[m]> 👍
15:20:26 <monerobull[m]> Why are reactions so weird in this room, i can add to plowsofs comment but not remove 
15:30:12 <plowsof> yep not MoneroKon. - we still need to raise at least $16.5k for a verbal agreement / promise made to CypherStack that have planned to start work in December for the "paper review". The reply was unexpected. I've asked Liam for a timeframe. Ideally he would say its ready soon, and we can put forward a new scope / get a quote from CS again upon release. However - if its not soon - we should still "peer review" the paper. opinions? (we
15:30:12 <plowsof> need to raise funds)