[Suggestion] Stop calling it StringCT about research-lab

[fluffypony]

I'd like to put forward some options:

• RingCT XT
• RingCT2x
• RingCT Classic
• RingCT ABC
• RingCT Unlimited

[fluffypony]

RingCT Cash

[hyc]

We can keep the acronym: STRR RingCT. But I'd still pronounce it "stringCT" in spoken conversation. Maybe with a long rolled 'r' ...

[b-g-goodell]

I'm simply going to call it RTRS RingCT in papers (this follows a common convention in pubs of using the initials of the first authors of a proposed scheme). Coding, on the other hand... I'll probably rename it RTRSRingCT or Log-RingCT or RingCT-25519. If someone wants to come up with a clever name and fork, they can feel free.

[anonimal]

RingCT 2.0
RingCT2

If there is no scientific basis for using string (e.g., unlike string theory), then I agree.

[QuickBASIC]

If there is no scientific basis for using string (e.g., unlike string theory), then I agree.

It was an initialism created using characters from the researchers names to combat the use of RuffCT as they felt it was unfair to credit only only one author.

Dominique Schröder
Sri Aravinda Krishnan Thyagarajan
Tim Ruffing
Viktoria Ronge

STRR-RingCT became StringCT, which simply obfuscates what it is and does and adds nothing to understanding.

[anonimal]

STRR-RingCT became StringCT, which simply obfuscates what it is and does and adds nothing to understanding.

Yeah, that makes no sense at all. And what about the unlisted contributors? Should they be sought out to be included into the acronym?

Come on folks, we can do better than StringCT.

[sunday-afternoon]

VAST RingCT

Uses a letter from each contributor and highlights that a larger set is enabled.

[generalizethis]

Is there a specific trait enhanced by this version of RingCT?

[QuickBASIC]

@generalizethis

I'm not a cryptographer or developer, but I believe it allows for more compact signatures at larger ring sizes.

With n being ring size:
RingCT ring signatures storage requirements are O(n).
RTRS RingCT ring signatures storage requirements are O(log n).

This means that a ring signature with a 1024 inputs will only be 2x the size of one with only 8 inputs, instead of 128x the size.

[acrelab]

I'm a native English speaker and I'm not really convinced on the negative connotations of the word "string".

StringCT could be named after initials, could stand for STrong Ring CT or something.

If we wanna ditch String entirely then we could choose another word, or simply call it RingCT2.

StrongCT
RingCT2
2CT
RingECT (Ring Enhanced Confidential Transactions)

The core "ring" design hasn't changed and might be worth keeping in the name.

[QuickBASIC]

I'm a native English speaker and I'm not really convinced on the negative connotations of the word "string".

Sorry if I wasn't clear... I didn't use the word "negative", but I used the word "bad", but what I meant (and I feel I elaborated on) in the OP, is that the word "string" brings to mind different things than "ring" and it's still a ring and that leaves outsiders, newbies, etc wondering whats changed about the technology to change it from a "ring" to a "string"... and we're doing this just to credit the authors for their work.. I don't think the trade-off of possible confusion is worth it for the purpose of kudos.

I'd like to put forward some options:

RingCT XT
RingCT2x
RingCT Classic
RingCT ABC
RingCT Unlimited

@fluffypony maybe RingCTGold or VertCT? 😂😂😂

[QuickBASIC]

We can keep the acronym: STRR RingCT. But I'd still pronounce it "stringCT" in spoken conversation. Maybe with a long rolled 'r' ...

I think it's probably fine to call it STRR RingCT and pronounce it that way, but for all "official" (ha) documentation, research, communication we should retain the full text, so as to not to cause confusion.

What prompted me to create this issue was actually an update on Reddit where he actually used all three terms throughout. That's why I created the issue in the research-lab repo, because if anyone needs to be consistent about what it's being called, it's got to first be the researchers and developers, because they are going to set a de facto standard for what things are called.

[QuickBASIC]

Doesn't seem to be any further discussion ongoing and the researchers seem resolved. I'm going to go ahead and close the issue... Thanks all.