MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180806083925.kg5px476bzhec44b@erisian.com.au>
References: <CAPg+sBj7f+=OYXuOMdNeJk3NBG67FSQSF8Xv3seFCvwxCWq69A@mail.gmail.com>
	<A899D97B-5D47-4AB0-8A7F-57F91C58ADE1@sprovoost.nl>
	<CAPg+sBg1WuG1MihC3zBHJpxVqC2Sys7Y52iWs6JXEMmnL_tE_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKm4Qs2yAc+WKgN1J2D8MDgbzNnK69kF+hbY2GDyRqdVdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMZUoKm_ij4Ffzx5Wpipa5RAFA=5F06jhiTCMJhp3vAj1q+2jA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180806083925.kg5px476bzhec44b@erisian.com.au>
From: "Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.io>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 10:00:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMZUoKmu6Hsvj-Ux51KZR5xLY7r4d+GOiEn=WmOjGVfqwbz0PQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000072d2910572c4b672"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Schnorr signatures BIP
Precedence: list

--00000000000072d2910572c4b672
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > In light of this, I revise my proposed change to make the verification
> > equation
> >
> > R + sG + eP = 0.
>
> Isn't the verification equation "R + s(-G) + eP = 0" equally good, then,
> since -G is a constant? (ie, at worst it's a matter of optimising the
> verifier for -G as well as G)
>

Yes you are right.

Thanks, I withdraw my proposal.

--00000000000072d2910572c4b672
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Anthony Towns <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:aj@erisian.com.au" target=3D"_blank">aj@erisian.com.au</a>&g=
t;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Sun,=
 Aug 05, 2018 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Russell O&#39;Connor via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:<br>
&gt; In light of this, I revise my proposed change to make the verification=
<br>
&gt; equation<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; R + sG + eP =3D 0.<br>
<br>
</span>Isn&#39;t the verification equation &quot;R + s(-G) + eP =3D 0&quot;=
 equally good, then,<br>
since -G is a constant? (ie, at worst it&#39;s a matter of optimising the<b=
r>
verifier for -G as well as G)<br></blockquote></div></div><div class=3D"gma=
il_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Yes you are right.</div><div=
 class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Thanks, I withd=
raw my proposal.<br></div></div>

--00000000000072d2910572c4b672--