[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[GNUnet-SVN] [taler-exchange] branch master updated: more responses for
From: |
gnunet |
Subject: |
[GNUnet-SVN] [taler-exchange] branch master updated: more responses for fc17 |
Date: |
Wed, 17 May 2017 17:02:37 +0200 |
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
dold pushed a commit to branch master
in repository exchange.
The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this push:
new 744d81b more responses for fc17
744d81b is described below
commit 744d81b5acc5a9c729b6bef45499f97833e8b773
Author: Florian Dold <address@hidden>
AuthorDate: Wed May 17 17:02:32 2017 +0200
more responses for fc17
---
doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt b/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
index 06fe468..62e53d9 100644
--- a/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
+++ b/doc/paper/taler_FC2017.txt
@@ -144,6 +144,9 @@ Specific comments:
- Section 4.1, step 3, what is the key K used in FDH? Also is S_w(B) a standard
signature?
+> The "K" here means that the domain of the full domain hash is the
+> modulus of the public key K_v of the key pair K.
+
- Section 4.1, step 4, How can the exchange know that this was indeed a new
withdrawal request? If a new blinding factor b is used, then a customer can
create multiple “freshly” looking requests for the same C_p. (Also a minor
@@ -160,6 +163,9 @@ Specific comments:
the coin (i.e. cannot link with withdrawal) but this is still an anonymity
problem.
+> Yes, this is why the user has to refresh a partially spend coin
+> before reusing it, unless they don't care about their anonymity.
+
- Section 4.3, doesn’t seem very fair to compare with Zcash or at least it
should be highlighted that a quite weaker level of anonymity is achieved.
@@ -169,6 +175,11 @@ Specific comments:
denotes? Is that a commitment (as noted in the text) or a signature (as noted
in notation table?).
+> We multiply t_s^(i) with G, so the only reasonable domain is
+> [1,n] where n is the order of the elliptic curve we use.
+> S_{C’} is a signature made with private key C’_p, what we sign
+> over is the commitment.
+
- Section 4.3 In this protocol I would expect the customer to somehow “prove”
to the exchange what is the remaining value of the dirty coin. I do not see
this happening. How does this part of the protocol ensure that a user cannot
--
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
address@hidden
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [GNUnet-SVN] [taler-exchange] branch master updated: more responses for fc17,
gnunet <=