From d1f7fbdbe4d452191400dd1e2cad7f344c259c35 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: christophersanborn <23085117+christophersanborn@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 11:44:17 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Surjection question --- bsip-1201.md | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/bsip-1201.md b/bsip-1201.md index 1c8ed40..8356437 100644 --- a/bsip-1201.md +++ b/bsip-1201.md @@ -47,6 +47,10 @@ As can be seen, casual inspection of the blockchain does not reveal the unerlyin _(TODO: QUESTION: How is it ensured that HA is a valid curve point? There must be some kind of nonce increment in the hash procedure to reject non-curve points. Find out.)_ +### _Range Proofs_ and _Surjection Proofs_ + +(describe) + ## Specifications We propose to add the following three CA operations to the set of valid operations declared in graphene::chain::operation (chain/protocol/operations.hpp). The new CA operations are shown here side by side with their CT equivalents: @@ -74,6 +78,10 @@ The Op-Code additions and specifications provided in this document do not confli (TODO: Check whether preceding is true, i.e. that the operation structure is independent of signature method. If it is not true, include here a discussion of what else might need to be included in the structure, so that a decision can be made as to whether the two features would be best developed in parallel, or whether ring-sigs could be implemented subsequently as an "upgrade" to CA.) +#### Asset surjection and compatibility + +TODO: Question: Are Asset-Surjection Proofs compatible with a Ring-Sig scheme? I.e., can a prover who is "accusing" unrelated inputs produce the proof even not knowing the blind factors and asset tags of the unrelated inputs? + ## Summary for Shareholders ## Copyright