Newsletters: add #18 (2018-10-23) #78
Conversation
|
Oh, Travis appears to be not running, perhaps due to the GitHub data inconsistency incident. I can confirm that commit ee3c0dc passes all tests for me locally. |
| you've set a custom RPC port or otherwise have enabled a customized | ||
| configuration. | ||
|
|
||
| A [PR][Bitcoin Core #14531] has been opened to Bitcoin Core to make |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is the correct PR to reference: bitcoin/bitcoin#14532
There was a problem hiding this comment.
D'oh, I thought I checked all the links. Thanks! Fixed (force-pushed).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still think it might be broken as the link is missing? This is what I see when I test it locally: "A [PR][Bitcoin Core #14532] has"
harding
force-pushed
the
2018-10-23-newsletter
branch
from
ee3c0dc to
2feedbf
Compare
| creating the pubkey, they may also make it possible for fewer than all | ||
| of them to sign, e.g. 2-of-3 of them must cooperate to sign. This can | ||
| be much more efficient than Bitcoin's current multisig, which requires | ||
| placing *m* signatures and *n* pubkeys into transactions for m-of-n |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a slight preference for k-of-n, because m-of-n sounds very similar to n-of-n when spoken. I'm aware that both variants are commonly used, so if you prefer m-of-n that's also fine.
| for ECDSA means it also supports pure ECDSA multiparty schemes as | ||
| well. No changes are required to the consensus rules, the P2P | ||
| protocol, address formats, or any other shared resource. All you | ||
| need are two wallets that both implement multiparty ECDSA key |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
'two or more wallets that implement' ?
| evaluate their security properties, and consider implementing | ||
| them---and some experts are already busy working on implementing a | ||
| consensus change proposal that would enable a Schnorr signature | ||
| scheme that would also provide for multiparty pubkeys and signatures |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggest that we emphasize that Schnorr threshold signatures are far less complex to implement. Something like: 'that would provide for a far less complex scheme for multiparty pubkeys and signatures'
| scheme that would also provide for multiparty pubkeys and signatures | ||
| (and which also provides multiple other benefits). | ||
|
|
||
| - [Fast Multiparty Threshold ECDSA with Fast Trustless Setup][mpecdsa goldfeder] by Rosario Gennaro and Steven Goldfeder |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
curious why [mpecdsa goldfeder] and not [mpecdsa gennaro]?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha, you're right, it's an incongruity. I was looking at the URL when choosing the link name and the paper is hosted on StevenGoldfeder.com. :-)
|
ACK 0efd859 |
* newsletter270zh * Update _posts/zh/newsletters/2023-09-27-newsletter.md Co-authored-by: freeyao <[email protected]> * Update _posts/zh/newsletters/2023-09-27-newsletter.md Co-authored-by: freeyao <[email protected]> * fix style * fix style --------- Co-authored-by: editor-Ajian <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: freeyao <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Zhiwei(Jeffrey) Hu <[email protected]>
* newsletter270zh * Update _posts/zh/newsletters/2023-09-27-newsletter.md Co-authored-by: freeyao <[email protected]> * Update _posts/zh/newsletters/2023-09-27-newsletter.md Co-authored-by: freeyao <[email protected]> * fix style * fix style --------- Co-authored-by: editor-Ajian <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: freeyao <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Zhiwei(Jeffrey) Hu <[email protected]>
3 participants
A bit wordy and technical this week; I'll try to be more concise and simple next week.
For the nmap results, I'm happy to email or IRC the commands to any of you who want to replicate the test (I just don't like posting exact port scanning commands publicly in order to reduce abuse).