diff --git a/_posts/2019-09-16-logs-for-the-Monero-Research-Lab-meeting-held-on-2019-09-16.md b/_posts/2019-09-16-logs-for-the-Monero-Research-Lab-meeting-held-on-2019-09-16.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..2979427b --- /dev/null +++ b/_posts/2019-09-16-logs-for-the-Monero-Research-Lab-meeting-held-on-2019-09-16.md @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ +--- +layout: post +title: Logs for the Monero Research Lab Meeting Held on 2019-09-16 +summary: Sarang work, and miscellaneous +tags: [dev diaries, community, crypto, research] +author: el00ruobuob / sarang +--- + +# Logs + +**\** OK, it's time for the meeting! +**\** Agenda: https://github.com/monero-project/meta/issues/390 +**\** Logs posted there afterward +**\** GREETINGS +**\** Hello +**\** I'll wait a couple of minutes in case anyone else shows up +**\** o/ +**\** \*the regular crowd shuffles in\* +**\** Hi +**\** Our pal suraeNoether said he may not be available for today's meeting +**\** But I can share some of the things I've been working on for our ROUNDTABLE +**\** The ever-clever RandomRun posted an idea for a signature scheme earlier: https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/issues/56 +**\** Some updates have been made for efficiency, and I worked up proof-of-concept code: https://github.com/SarangNoether/skunkworks/tree/lrs/lrs +**\** And a timing/space analysis: https://github.com/SarangNoether/skunkworks/blob/sublinear/triptych.md +**\** (I gave it the name Triptych as a placeholder, so we have a name to use for clarity) +**\** It actually beats Lelantus in terms of 2-2 transaction size +**\** But verification is less efficient +**\** Also note that security hasn't been proven yet, but it uses a modification by Bootle et al. to a 1-of-N proof by Groth +**\** and that 1-of-N has good proofs +**\** Aside from that, I've been working with the Lelantus authors on some ideas to fix its self-spend tracing problem +**\** And that's coming together nicely +**\** The CLSAG paper will be submitted to Financial Cryptography this week +**\** And my CCS funding request for next quarter has been opened: https://ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/sarang-2019-q4.html +**\** On a more whimsical note, a preprint was just posted that does some analysis on a card-based cipher originally designed by Bruce Schneier for a book: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06300 +**\** It's a neat example of a cipher that appears to resist a good deal of modern cryptanalysis, but can be done using paper, pen, and a deck of playing cards! +**\** ElsieFour also has such properties except without the playing cards. +**\** Ah, and I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the trustless recursive SNARK paper, Halo, that was recently posted by the Zcash folks +**\** mikerah: I wasn't familiar with that! +**\** Has it undergone much analysis? +**\** Here's the preprint: https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/339.pdf +**\** neat +**\** I'm not sure if it has gone through much analysis as it's a relatively new construction. +**\** But you can use paper and pen! +**\** Halo has some clever ideas in it, but it's worth noting (as usual) that preprints don't undergo peer review, and that Halo currently lacks a soundness proof +**\** It will be fun to see the new research that comes from its ideas +**\** Any particular questions on the items that I mentioned? +**\** How would the ideas from lelantus get implemented in monero? +**\** Its transaction model could, hypothetically, be implemented directly +**\** Using a particular kind of migration transaction to transition older outputs +**\** It would result initially in a smaller anonymity set +**\** Currently Lelantus has a tracing issue that's a deal-breaker IMO +**\** but very recent ideas mean that may not be a problem +**\** Would there be traceability problems from the current monero blockchain to this hypothetical lelantus+monero blockchain? +**\** How so? +**\** As in, would it be possible to trace transactions between hard forked blockchains +**\** In such an implementation, old-style transactions would not be allowed +**\** Old outputs would undergo a signer-ambiguous transaction to generate a new output commitment that is Lelantus-compatible +**\** sarang: greets +**\** So a migration is trivially distinguishable, but retains the same kind of signer ambiguity that exists now +**\** hi +**\** To be clear, there are no plans to implement this AFAIK +**\** I see. I guess more work would need to be done on this front. +**\** It's all just research +**\** Anyway, that's what I've been working on +**\** Does anyone else wish to share interesting research? +**\** OK! +**\** Well, in that case my ACTION ITEMS are administrative stuff for FC submission, ongoing analysis of Lelantus modifications and proofs, and returning to some existing recent proving systems +**\** Before we adjourn, is there anything else to discuss? +**\** i don't have any research im working on, but im enjoying banging my head regarding the randomx branch prediction problem +**\** Go on! +**\** so, big chunk of CPU silicon dedicated to branch prediction. Turns out a lot of the methods use neural networks kinda thing (called perceptron at one point). +**\** however, problem is that randomx is random - its random whether a branch will be taken +**\** and when somethings random, hard for machine-learning / pattern recognition to get any gains +**\** Makes sense +**\** however, if you try and seed random into the program (such that a branch predictor could find some emergent pattern), this information could be harvested by an ASIC or some other mitigation +**\** so, my head sorta got stuck at that point... and if it'd be possible to somehow hide the emergent pattern... and then all the thought threads frayed +**\** So, using information from existing CPU architectures in order to develop better specialized hardware? +**\** Or information from any kind of well-designed predictor, I suppose +**\** well the general randomx problem is to make a PoW that leverages stuff in CPUs. +**\** and branch prediction is underleveraged due to the problem i just described +**\** Ah, ok +**\** I don't know enough about CPU branch prediction to fully appreciate this, but it sounds interesting nonetheless +**\** Anything else of interest to share before the meeting ends? +**\** All righty then +**\** Thanks to everyone for being here; we are now adjourned! +**\** Logs will be posted shortly