@janowitz@calciferciccio@fluffypony@binaryFate we were only in contact with sarang. if diego was involved in the background that's possible, but out of my knowledge. regarding credits, i would have loved to credit him, that's why I mentioned him in the PR description but that's the blog post he sent so I assume he is ok with
@calciferciccio@janowitz@fluffypony@binaryFate what I mean with that is that I saw the backlinks, but since Zano paid for the audit and Sarang / Cypher Stack found them I thought it was fair to keep them in. It wasn't some kind of requirement to get the blog post published
@fluffypony@calciferciccio@janowitz@binaryFate you are in the channel where this was discussed, this wasn't some rushed blog post merge. but i don't know how active you use irc these days.
the reason it didn't get opened earlier is because it was part of a responsible disclosure process.
@calciferciccio@fluffypony@janowitz@binaryFate he was the most qualified for it so we said yes. he asked for feedback and we were free to edit it as we want. diego had no involvement. i knew this would end up in drama but i prefer an accurate blog post on how these issues affect monero over some personal issues
@calciferciccio@fluffypony@janowitz@binaryFate sarang disclosed issues in CLSAG security proofs and asked if we want to be included in the responsible disclosure. after half a day later we didn't have anything written and sarang offered to write a blog post for us. since he created clsag, and he worked monero's implementation
@tannerdsilva@DontTraceMeBruh@hundehausen we have been looking into improving performance during heavy rpc load (together with large txpool) but that's not something we will have ready with the next release
@cold_hanshan @crypto_0ptimist@CryptoTweetie They want a new t-address that can only receive funds from t-addresses. Basically you would have to send from z->t->t instead of directly z->t.