04:59:59 <xmrack[m]> https://web.archive.org/web/20220806123659id_/https://eprints.qut.edu.au/232827/1/Niluka_Amarasinghe_Thesis.pdf
05:00:48 <xmrack[m]> In this work, we introduce a common framework, which can be used to evaluate the nature and extent of anonymity in (crypto)currencies and similar distributed transaction systems, irrespective of their implementation. For this purpose, we construct a theoretical model to represent the generic functionality of cryptocurrency schemes across different implementations, by establishing a cryptographically sound and secure foundation. We
05:00:48 <xmrack[m]> then develop a comprehensive adversarial model in order to capture different aspects of anonymity around system entities.
05:00:48 <xmrack[m]> Building upon this foundation, we formulate a common template, which is capable of modelling a multitude of different attacker scenarios with respect to various anonymity considerations. With an aim to strengthen the usability of this framework, we provide formal definitions for anonymity notions pertaining to various scenarios. In addition, we investigate the relationships among those definitions and formulate a set of theorems
05:00:48 <xmrack[m]> indicating the implications, dependencies and separations among them. Accordingly, this framework, together with the formal definitions and theorems, provides a means for modelling anonymity uniformly across different constructions. As such, the fine-grained systematisation of anonymity resulting from this work highlights the importance of precise definitions for modelling anonymity, which is a surprisingly nuanced concept
05:02:03 <xmrack[m]> I havent read through it yet but this dissertation was just published and it seems like they analyzed Monero’s security model
05:18:05 <UkoeHB> dead link?
05:19:51 <jeffro256[m]> The gut.edu.au link works for me 
10:06:53 <narodnik> gm
13:38:02 <xmrack[m]> UkoeHB: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/232827/1/Niluka_Amarasinghe_Thesis.pdf
21:01:16 <BobbyDROPtables[> <UkoeHB> "dead link?" <- looks like (at least to me) the pdf part of the path is not being included in the link: "https://web.archive.org/web/20220806123659/https://eprints.qut.edu.au/232827/1/Niluka_Amarasinghe_Thesis.pdf"
21:03:29 <BobbyDROPtables[> didn't help, but xmrack posted the original url too
21:04:42 <xmrack[m]> Yea sorry about that, just use the eprint link
21:05:53 <BobbyDROPtables[> https://archive.is/YODGV this one should work too
21:07:46 <BobbyDROPtables[> looks like archive.today just made a screenshot 🤷
21:08:57 <Rucknium[m]> This is the most detailed breakdown and comparison of different coins' privacy capabilities that I've seen. It doesn't try to find flaws in the privacy models, by the way. It takes the claims at face value.
22:17:46 <xmrack[m]> Rucknium: I agree. When I have time I’ll add it to moneroresearch.info 
22:47:46 <fr33_yourself[m]> <xmrack[m]> "Rucknium: I agree. When I have..." <- Please share the moneroresearch.info link in here once you've added it to the site. Thanks :)
23:03:59 <moneromooo> If it just takes the claims at face value, why would it be on a monero research site ?
23:05:03 <moneromooo> Maybe I'm misinterpreting "takes the claims at face value" though ?
23:06:09 <UkoeHB> moneromooo: takes the claims of what monero’s privacy features are without verifying them
23:06:38 <UkoeHB> It’s not a cryptography paper, so that makes sense to me
23:07:15 <moneromooo> Well, then it'd seem to be just parroting what shitcoin pushers claim for their Nth attempt at pulling the wool over people's eyes, no ?
23:07:40 <moneromooo> Some are not actually honest.
23:08:35 <UkoeHB> The conclusions may not be accurate if the claims analyzed aren’t accurate, but the paper’s main contribution is the framework for assessing the properties of those claims.
23:09:28 <UkoeHB> Although I’m not too sure myself what we can do with such an analysis.
23:45:54 <xmrack[m]> moneromooo: I’d argue that its beneficial to have theoretical review of the protocol as well as implementation peer review