07:34:18 On the one hand be militantly against "any form of PoS implementation", also propose a system that gives stake to something that is essentially free. > <@sgp_> "All you have to do is ask questions instead of being adversarial." 07:41:07 on the other hand we have the zcash finality layer + crosslink and the Tachyon scaling aspect. "solutions" presented everywhere 07:42:23 How can we bring more clarity into this debate and show what the tradeoffs are? 10:40:05 Is FCMP still considered decoy model privacy? Or is it something else? 10:49:39 technically your output is one in the chain :) 10:54:04 monerokon fcmp presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrCAiLPfXlg 11:00:31 I watched this live 11:17:21 @untraceable: nah. some of the zcash dubai influencers even say its a copy of zcash tech which is also not true 11:49:05 https://x.com/ZR1Trader/status/1973434984259264624 cant find the original post anymore. One avenue is they try to paint the "inferior drug dealer tech" picture. In this context I saw the words "decoy systems" thrown around. The other is: its just a copy of zcash https://x.com/MindsFiction/status/1974012527076897015 14:00:36 The post linked there may be one of the worst pieces of 'technical analysis' I've seen in a while 14:02:38 It badly characterizes Bulletproofs, predating PLONK by years and supporting arbitrary R1CS circuits (we do not directly instantiate the IPA as alleged), before proceeding to criticize us for building our own platform when Zcash literally did the same. The fact other people have build systems around PLONK doesn't mean Zcash di [... too long, see https://mrelay.p2pool.observer/e/3KOdyLsKSU9YVjJn ] 21:17:40 > <@spirobel:kernal.eu> https://x.com/ZR1Trader/status/1973434984259264624 cant find the original post anymore. One avenue is they try to paint the "inferior drug dealer tech" picture. In this context I saw the words "decoy systems" thrown around. The other is: its just a copy of zcash https://x.com/MindsFiction/status/1974012527076897015 21:17:40 Lmao you can't win with some ZCash people. It's either A) "You're so low tech and outdated, get with the times", or B) "You're doing FCMPs? You're just ripping off of Zcash" 21:20:10 Some folks over there are afraid that Monero will both 1) have a stronger network effect than their coin, and 2) have feature parity in terms of privacy tech (which in practice affords better privacy b/c larger network effect and mandatory shielding) 21:20:45 And FCMP++ txs will be slightly smaller than Zcash Orchard shielded txs for most input/output count combos 22:16:10 @jeffro256: How big are zcash's 1-2in txs 22:34:40 This transaction (https://mainnet.zcashexplorer.app/transactions/455b9efe27ac7b037a48484adfad75a64d1f6eb4b7d53e1afd120a9155f18cbe/raw) has 2 "actions", which probably means it here I'm pretty sure that the Zcash reference wallet pads 1-in txs to 2-in for uniformity. And most txs will have >=2 outs. The smallest shielded Zcash txs I can find are 9165 bytes. Assuming that those are 2/2 22:34:54 Oops ignore previous msg slop 22:37:16 Iirc, it's 2.5kb + (2.5kb * max(i, o)) vs 4.6kb + 1.2kb * i + 0.2kb * o or so 22:37:52 This transaction (https://mainnet.zcashexplorer.app/transactions/455b9efe27ac7b037a48484adfad75a64d1f6eb4b7d53e1afd120a9155f18cbe/raw) has 2 "actions", which probably means it is a 1-in/1-out tx and it has a byte size of 9165 bytes. A 1-in/2-out FCMP++/Carrot tx is anywhere from 6261 bytes to 6498 bytes. Although plz ignore my input if it's not true that in-count + out-cout = action-acount 22:37:53 (Zcash, Monero) 22:38:31 @jeffro256:monero.social: No, 2 actions is 2 IO pairs 22:39:00 So that's a 2/2? That makes sense b/c IIRC the reference wallet pads 1-ins to 2-ins for uniformity right? 22:39:13 Or it might only be spending 1, but is effective size as spending 2 22:39:18 That's max(i, o) = 2 22:39:47 Comparison to 2-in/2-out FCMP++/CARROT would be fair. 22:40:52 Okay so fair comparison would be 9165B Zcash to [7352B, 7877B] Monero 22:42:46 Add 512 bytes to compensate for Zcash's design decision for a fixed memo and yep 22:42:50 Doesn't this formula let an external observer determine in and out count from the byte size, I'm assuming all the "Extra" data not attached to an action? > <@kayabanerve:matrix.org> Iirc, it's 2.5kb + (2.5kb * max(i, o)) vs 4.6kb + 1.2kb * i + 0.2kb * o or so 22:43:23 @kayabanerve:matrix.org: Hmmmm seems like a them problem ;) 22:43:28 Every action is a fixed size. 22:43:28 Every action may have one input and one output simultaneously within it. 22:43:51 Yeah, you can argue they're paying the cost, but re: the proofs, it's irrelevant. 22:43:56 Right, but that formula you just posted has the byte size scale differently with different i/o counts 22:44:08 For Monero 22:44:17 ohhhhhhhhhhhh 22:44:23 I posted two formulas. One for Zcash, one for Monero 22:44:50 durr 22:45:32 My honest opinion? We trade blows. We're a bit more efficient AFAIK, and I'm incredibly proud of that, but we're also releasing years later with years more of theory. 22:46:13 I'm primarily proud of that for we're finally getting to where we are and for our work given how we're not the ECC. 22:46:53 The toxicity is bullshit and shouldn't be propagated. 22:47:18 Zcash is working on Tachyon, and I don't believe I agree with the design decisions. Personally, I'd hope Monero to take the step forward to PQ. 22:50:08 For fun's sake, do you know of anywhere to find info for current Tachyon proof sizes. Perhaps their implementation is not that far along yet 22:51:46 @kayabanerve:matrix.org: I honestly think it's the right decision for them in the short to medium term if only they would make shielded txs mandatory, which would have the effect of 1) slimming down bloat, and then 2) increases anon set. I doubt that that will ever get much traction though. 22:53:47 I know literally nothing about the implementation other than the claim it'll be on mainnet within a year which... I don't know how to respond to given the lack of public availability of information on it. 22:58:20 Over and under 2 years from now? 22:58:25 s/and/or