Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-08-06 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-08-06
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In light of this, I revise my proposed change to make the verification
> > equation
> >
> > R + sG + eP = 0.
>
> Isn't the verification equation "R + s(-G) + eP = 0" equally good, then,
> since -G is a constant? (ie, at worst it's a matter of optimising the
> verifier for -G as well as G)
>
Yes you are right.
Thanks, I withdraw my proposal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180806/223ea8f3/attachment.html>
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In light of this, I revise my proposed change to make the verification
> > equation
> >
> > R + sG + eP = 0.
>
> Isn't the verification equation "R + s(-G) + eP = 0" equally good, then,
> since -G is a constant? (ie, at worst it's a matter of optimising the
> verifier for -G as well as G)
>
Yes you are right.
Thanks, I withdraw my proposal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180806/223ea8f3/attachment.html>