Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SpTxSquashedV1: simplify txid #44

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

jeffro256
Copy link

We got rid of the tx artifacts hash. The reason for it was a follows:

note: key images are represented in the tx id twice (tx proposal prefix and input images
-    //   - the reasons are: A) decouple proposals from the enote image structure, B) don't require proposals to commit
-    //     to input commitment masks

Input proposals DO commit to input commitment masks though (see SpInputProposalCore). Does the txid hash indirection still serve a purpose or could we make the txid faster?

We got rid of the tx artifacts hash. The reason for it was a follows:
```
note: key images are represented in the tx id twice (tx proposal prefix and input images
-    //   - the reasons are: A) decouple proposals from the enote image structure, B) don't require proposals to commit
-    //     to input commitment masks
```

Input proposals DO commit to input commitment masks though (see `SpInputProposalCore`). Does the txid hash indirection
still serve a purpose or could we make the txid faster?
@jeffro256 jeffro256 marked this pull request as ready for review April 22, 2024 20:56
@UkoeHB
Copy link
Owner

UkoeHB commented May 2, 2024

This PR is invalid because it doesn't move commitment to K", C" into the tx proposal prefix.

Input proposals DO commit to input commitment masks though (see SpInputProposalCore). Does the txid hash indirection still serve a purpose or could we make the txid faster?

They don't commit to the masks, since proposals with different masks produce the same proposal id. I don't remember the full context around this, but more flexibility in the tx id structure is good.

@jeffro256 jeffro256 closed this May 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants