BIP Halfagg: Fix two inconsistencies #15
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jonasnick
reviewed
Jan 31, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the review! This means we have three implementations now: in hacspec, in python and in libsecp256k1-zkp C.
real-or-random
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
utACK c3236ba
Great to hear that there's a python implementation now!
jonasnick
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I found two inconsistencies while reviewing/implementing the Halfagg BIP:
pm_aggdwhen called withinAggregate.VerifyAggregateis inconsistent between the BIP and the hacspec implementation. The BIP usespki, the 32 bytes public key, while the hacspec implementation uses the corresponding pointPi. I wasn't sure which one was the correct way, for now, I updated the BIP but maybe the hacspec implementation is supposed to be fixed instead. Since I was using the test vectors from the hacspec implementation to confirm my code was correct it was just more convenient to assume the hacspec code is correct.FWIW, my Python implementation can be found can be found here: https://github.com/fjahr/cisa-playground/blob/main/halfagg.py My main goal with this was to review the BIP so I tried to keep it as close to the BIP as possible.