<k​ayabanerve:matrix.org> I posted a development question about further improving the winning submission's inversion code into #no-wallet-left-behind:monero.social, if anyone here is interested. It ends up being on the actual assembly generated though, not any research theory. I just wanted to mention it in a room better trafficked than NWLB.

what's the rationale for awarding a second place prize, to reward notable effort, and not also include a 3rd, 4th, etc? If GF is contributing 30xmr for 2nd, could it not also contribute 15xmr for a 3rd prize, if the judges believe that notable effort was exhausted for that entry as well (presuming it is also a unique entry)

also from that recent paper that was shared "In the cryptocurrency transaction layer, untraceability means that a transaction hides which funds it transfers or “spends,” in the sense that the origin of the funds remains hidden among earlier transactions"

^^ is that a commonly accepted definition/understanding?

this is the paper i am referring to: crypto.unibe.ch/2025/07/11/decoys.html

<r​ucknium:monero.social> midipoet: The Cryptonote white paper says the definition of untraceability is "for each incoming transaction all possible senders are equiprobable."

<r​ucknium:monero.social> getmonero.org/resources/research-lab/pubs/cryptonote-whitepaper.pdf

<r​ucknium:monero.social> More formal recent work:

<r​ucknium:monero.social> Amarasinghe, N. (2022). Systematic Modelling of Anonymity with Application to Cryptocurrencies. moneroresearch.info/167

<r​ucknium:monero.social> Bobolz, J., Diaz, J., & Kohlweiss, M. (2024). Foundations of Anonymous Signatures: Formal Definitions, Simplified Requirements, and a Construction Based on General Assumptions. moneroresearch.info/215