š
Original date posted:2018-11-28
š Original message:Hi Omer,
Are there any candidates for non-interactive threshold signatures?
Interactive signatures are not very suitable for air-gapped use cases.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM Omer Shlomovits via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am working for the past few months with collaborators (in cc) on
> providing Rust reference implementations to existing multi party schemes
> for Schnorr signatures [1]. This includes aggregated signatures,
> accountable signatures (which for n out of n are multi-signatures) and
> threshold signatures (wip).
> The project can be found here:
> https://github.com/KZen-networks/multi-party-schnorr .
> We aim that if the protocol is run in a configuration of a single party it
> will be bip-schnorr [2] compliant.
>
> Hope you'll find it useful :)
> Questions, suggestions and pull requests are welcome!
>
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/KZen-networks/multi-party-schnorr/tree/master/papers
> [2] https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181127/9bf84f7f/attachment.html>;
Devrandom [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j0ā¦w9k8n
2023-06-07 18:15:22
in reply to nevent1qā¦k4gc
Author Public Key
npub1j0js72tmnxzmrtd6j0j5wcvfuhsqwgqxdwkpmw28rmmuy22y3wzsdw9k8nPublished at
2023-06-07 18:15:22Event JSON
{
"id": "cacf214a02d5fdd41f4c744dd2f69d3e92b94d6624c674187f3316b5a95c623c",
"pubkey": "93e50f297b9985b1adba93e5476189e5e00720066bac1db9471ef7c229448b85",
"created_at": 1686161722,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cd7e024950034674de771ae97f0f4a7d697cc0813c8ea05376c31db3ca1405a1",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5759e3d7039f1dab0e3c67743e98bec2be3cb58d682e65a7ece73fd4cd84e169",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"c17b4e785b1b6f810b8d1567cbc57ebefa8d20c59ada2f5d1c9537d41251a6ed"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2018-11-28\nš Original message:Hi Omer,\n\nAre there any candidates for non-interactive threshold signatures?\nInteractive signatures are not very suitable for air-gapped use cases.\n\nOn Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM Omer Shlomovits via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Hello all,\n\u003e\n\u003e I am working for the past few months with collaborators (in cc) on\n\u003e providing Rust reference implementations to existing multi party schemes\n\u003e for Schnorr signatures [1]. This includes aggregated signatures,\n\u003e accountable signatures (which for n out of n are multi-signatures) and\n\u003e threshold signatures (wip).\n\u003e The project can be found here:\n\u003e https://github.com/KZen-networks/multi-party-schnorr .\n\u003e We aim that if the protocol is run in a configuration of a single party it\n\u003e will be bip-schnorr [2] compliant.\n\u003e\n\u003e Hope you'll find it useful :)\n\u003e Questions, suggestions and pull requests are welcome!\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e [1]\n\u003e https://github.com/KZen-networks/multi-party-schnorr/tree/master/papers\n\u003e [2] https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20181127/9bf84f7f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "b494a7adb00f8b3f7d82fde599f4581bb607629a04e88497028b904c961c915a7bc886b7d2210da48d08ce8ae5075c1d2b6fe6718942a402f3d61ecbae80d14a"
}