Daniel Edgecumbe [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2018-02-22 📝 Original message:> However, the ...
📅 Original date posted:2018-02-22
📝 Original message:> However, the non-interactive schnorr aggregation trick[1] can be
applied to merge the S values of all graftroots and signatures in a
transaction into a single aggregate. With this approach only a single
R value for each graftroot need be published, lowering the overhead to
~32 bytes-- the same as taproot. This has a side benefit of binding
the published grafts to a particular transaction, which might help
avoid some screwups.
I don't think that binding grafts to a particular transaction requires this aggregation.
It seems to me that you could just sign H(txid, script) rather than H(script).
I'm not aware of whether this would break aggregation.
---
Daniel Edgecumbe / esotericnonsense
esotericnonsense at esotericnonsense.com
https://esotericnonsense.com
https://danedgecumbe.com
📝 Original message:> However, the non-interactive schnorr aggregation trick[1] can be
applied to merge the S values of all graftroots and signatures in a
transaction into a single aggregate. With this approach only a single
R value for each graftroot need be published, lowering the overhead to
~32 bytes-- the same as taproot. This has a side benefit of binding
the published grafts to a particular transaction, which might help
avoid some screwups.
I don't think that binding grafts to a particular transaction requires this aggregation.
It seems to me that you could just sign H(txid, script) rather than H(script).
I'm not aware of whether this would break aggregation.
---
Daniel Edgecumbe / esotericnonsense
esotericnonsense at esotericnonsense.com
https://esotericnonsense.com
https://danedgecumbe.com