11:48:50 <midipoet> Rucknium[m]: graphsense.info
11:49:24 <midipoet> https://github.com/graphsense
13:25:31 <Rucknium[m]> midipoet: Thanks. Looks like they use BlockSci under the hood plus their own techniques.
17:03:08 <UkoeHB> I'm thinking seraphis should be split into two 'professional' papers. 1. the seraphis abstraction + efficiency estimates (appendices: squashed enote model, composition proof, grootle proof [the security proof for this one can be trivially copied from the lelantus-spark paper with minor adjustments]). 2. the jamtis address scheme with justified design decisions and the seraphis knowledge proof framework that ties in 
17:03:08 <UkoeHB> https://github.com/seraphis-migration/wallet3/issues/42#issuecomment-1377887717 (tevador's gist is a design spec but isn't the right place to attempt a security model or to lay out design justifications). Right now the seraphis paper has 'implementation comments' - I think most of the hypothetical stuff can delegated to footnotes of the jamtis paper.
17:06:02 <UkoeHB> We can even add the seraphis matrix proof as a footnote of the jamtis paper, which will satisfy a lot of people I expect. This guy (needed for multisig and for knowledge proofs): https://github.com/UkoeHB/monero/blob/seraphis_lib/src/seraphis_crypto/matrix_proof.h
17:06:10 <UkoeHB> appendix not footnote*
17:07:01 <UkoeHB> I will get those two papers into a good state that can be handed off to a proper math guy for security proofing.
17:08:08 <UkoeHB> Maybe done by April? My how this continues to take way longer than I expect.
17:55:03 <Rucknium[m]> As a non-cryptographer, that sounds good to me. Diego Salazar , what do you think of koe's plan?