Order of hash function parameters in adaptor point#217
Open
raulcano wants to merge 1 commit intodiscreetlogcontracts:masterfrom
Open
Order of hash function parameters in adaptor point#217raulcano wants to merge 1 commit intodiscreetlogcontracts:masterfrom
raulcano wants to merge 1 commit intodiscreetlogcontracts:masterfrom
Conversation
Contributor
|
ACK |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I discovered a very minor inconsistency in specs regarding the hash function in the adaptor points (aka tweak points or signature points).
S = R + H(R || P || m) * P(R before the P)si * G = Ri + H(P, Ri, di)*P(P before the Ri)T = R + H(R || P || m)*P(R before the P)Hence, for clarity and consistency, this pull request proposes to change the
H(P, Ri, di)toH(Ri, P, di).In all fairness, the notation
H(P, Ri, di)does not imply that the byte chain will be built in the same order the parameters are present in the function call (the operator||implies concatenation, the comma,does not). However, for clarity, I believe we should make sure to use the same order and avoid potential confusion.