<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> @tevador It's an inherent byproduct able to be taken advantage of whenever. I was not proposing changes for it. I'd actually love if you reviewed the posited algebra, even if you don't sign off on implementing the feature + advertising it at this time.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Uhhh, since you're explicitly saying it require changes, where's the confusion?

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Implementing OVKs requires changes, agreed. Having the door be open is inherent.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> I'm not advocating we implement the new private key + wallet utils at this time. I'm noting it's made possible.

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Added thoughts on forward secrecy. That'd appear possible *with a new opening proof*, which I don't want to get into now due to scope creep concerns.

<m-relay> <d​iego:cypherstack.com> Or can we get some comments and trying to get it merged and funded so we can get started? <= I don't think there is a need to wait until the next meeting

We can get comments in now already

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Thank you tevador for the full write-up on Helios and Selene :D And apologies again if I made you feel like I was inviting scope creep (especially with the follow-up on forward secrecy I added)

I still haven't fully reviewed your write-ups about OVKs and forward secrecy. I'll try to leave some comments later.

I guess it's time for me to finally start learning rust.

"OVKs" would actually be a completely new wallet format with backwards compatible addresses: gist.github.com/kayabaNerve/0e1f771…ment_id=5014753#gistcomment-5014753