15:25:33 <m-relay> <k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Bulletproofs++ was accepted to EUROCRYPT.
15:29:21 <moneromoooo> Does this imply passing some substantial peer review ?
15:39:07 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> About a year and a half ago I asked Sarang in the Firo research channel #research:firo.org  "What are the peer review standards for conferences and journals for cryptography and computer science?"
15:39:31 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> I think it's OK to repost here since the channel is semi-public:
15:39:53 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > I have limited knowledge of this, but I've submitted before and also reviewed
15:40:02 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > I've personally received good review, and also absolute sh*t review that made me question if they actually read the paper
15:40:10 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > That being said, I've seen specific direction indicating that reviewers were not expected to review security proofs
15:40:20 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > which is... I don't even know what that's about
15:40:30 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > My current view is that paid non-anonymous review yields generally better results than anonymous unpaid volunteer review
15:40:39 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > but this is a very general statement
15:40:50 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > So to answer your initial question... "there aren't really any particular standards"
15:41:00 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> > Depends on the reviewer and perhaps the editor
15:42:31 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> Sarang, through CypherStack, is doing "paid non-anonymous review" of the BP++ paper right now. So probably in Sarang's opinion his review will give better results than the EUROCRYPT review :)
15:42:35 <moneromoooo> Thanks. Peer review is known to be a bit hit and miss, but this appears to be more miss than hit, if I interpret this right.
15:44:42 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> The BP++ paper is listed as accepted on this webpage: https://eurocrypt.iacr.org/2024/acceptedpapers.php
15:45:16 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> The Cremers, Loss, and Wagner "A Holistic Security Analysis of Monero Transactions" paper is also listed there.
15:49:03 <m-relay> <r​ucknium:monero.social> AFAIK, people could produce counterfeit XMR if Monero's BP implementation were to have a major flaw. The EUROCRYPT acceptance alone is a good sign for BP++, but it's probably not enough to reach the standard for Monero mainnet deployment IMHO. But CypherStack is on the case, funded by the CCS :)
16:14:15 <m-relay> <a​js_:matrix.org> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLX-Cd170Ro&list=PLsSYUeVwrHBm1m7IaU3JiDVb5EC7cn0KG&index=9
16:14:54 <m-relay> <a​js_:matrix.org> The holistic paper was delivered remotely last year at MoneroKon
16:16:59 <m-relay> <a​js_:matrix.org> Is one of the Bulletproofs++ authors in this room?
16:17:24 <moneromoooo> You'd need a range proof to answer that question...
19:21:37 <UkoeHB> I once saw someone claim an editor for a prominent medical journal said 'if we rejected bad science, we'd have nothing to print'. Hearsay, but probably true :)
21:34:29 <midipoet> I'd say that's one of best jokes I've read in this room. 
21:34:58 <midipoet> moneromoooo's, not the editors 
21:51:09 <m-relay> <t​obtoht:monero.social> (midipoet: I had this saved https://i.postimg.cc/d3K5vD8F/morolo.png )