<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> Delicious 9/&0

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> 9/10*

🏇

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> 🏇 for real

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > In 2017, the protocol safeguards were strengthened to thwart the techniques used by Möser et al. (2018).

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> Doesn't that read like the protocol received some enhancements based on a paper that was... published a year later, or what does that 2018 in parentheses stand for?

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > Note that the OSPEAD research has not yet been formally peer-reviewed.

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> Are you planning on getting it peer-reviewed at least once, or will you leave it at the MRL committee who got access to it?

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > *Developments to come*

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> >

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > The OSPEAD-derived decoy selection distribution could be deployed to mitigate the risk of the MAP Decoder attack. However, a Monero network upgrade (hard fork) would be required for safest deployment. A network upgrade, though necessary for major improvement to Monero, is disruptive to the Monero ecosystem. The costs may outweigh the benefits.

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> >

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> > Currently, the next expected hard fork is set to deploy Full-Chain Membership Proofs, which eliminate the weaknesses of the ring signature privacy model.

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> Thoughts on an opt-in softfork to mitigate? While not as disruptive, would be keep focus on FCMP++'s network upgrade and per your previous response, it might still be benefitial to deploy OSPEAD improvements in some edge node connecting processes, isn't that right?

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> Otherwise, draft looks good. Would you be okay with me sharing it in Revuo if it hasn't gone live by Sunday for next issue?

<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> Rucknium: Cam I fit my above comments from Matrix into tomorrow's discussion on the contest, please?

<s​gp_:monero.social> Thank you for not saying equivalent to ringsize 4. I think the current wording there is much clearer and more accurate

<s​gp_:monero.social> I recommend adding a few sentences along the following:

<s​gp_:monero.social> Let's continue the analogy of the horse race bettor. Did they pick the winning horse (truly spent input enote)? Unlike a normal race, we don't know the specific outcome (if the guess was correct). This limits the impact of the attack in practice, especially since the best guess is incorrect the majority of the time, on average.

<s​gp_:monero.social> I recommend adding a few sentences along the following:

<s​gp_:monero.social> Let's continue the analogy of the horse race bettor. Did they pick the winning horse (truly spent input enote)? Unlike a normal race, we usually don't learn the outcome (if the guess was correct). This limits the impact of the attack in practice, especially since the best guess is incorrect the majority of the time, on average.

<s​gp_:monero.social> Put another way, if you guess the truly spent enote in 4 Monero rings, you will have guessed 1 of those correctly (on average), but you don't know which of those guesses is correct.

<s​gp_:monero.social> Is that useful information? That depends™️