-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 226
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merge main into develop #277
Conversation
Update image source for bulletproofs logo
Add a transcript protocol function that checks for identity points.
Ah, looks like this doesn't quite work, because of the lack of error conversions... |
This follows the same logic as in the rangeproof case: we don't have an a priori reason to think that there's a security problem with allowing these points to be the identity, but this is an area where people make mistakes in under-specification of assumptions, etc., and there is no valid reason for these points to be the identity, so this works as a defense-in-depth mechanism. The extra validation is not applied to the value commitments, in order to allow commitments to the zero value with zero blinding factor.
In the long term, I think that it would be better to combine R1CSError with ProofError, if we can do that without breaking stability. If not, we should refactor the TranscriptProtocol so that it returns a TranscriptError type that can be converted into either a ProofError or an R1CSError.
b5960b8
to
29fad78
Compare
Updated. There's an issue with the R1CS benchmarks -- it looks like they fell out of sync with the In the long term, I think that it would be better to combine R1CSError with ProofError, if we can do that without breaking stability. If not, we should refactor the TranscriptProtocol so that it returns a TranscriptError type that can be converted into either a ProofError or an R1CSError. For now I would prefer to keep the "bad conversion" and then remove it later by one of those two means. |
Have you considered using something like
|
Yep, we are using |
We should probably update and merge this branch before merging #280. I think the things left to do here are:
|
Fixed the R1CS benchmarks. |
Moved the error item into #286, let's fix it there instead of here. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍
This updates the develop branch with R1CS code to include the extra validation changes made in the main branch for 1.0.2.