You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The problem with using TIPA black-box as I am right now is that it attempts to calculate the structured KZG polynomial commitment proof for both left and right. We would want to extract the polynomial commitment proving and verification code from the main prove and verify methods, so that they can be called separately for left and right.
Then to do TIPA for left and a structured scalar message for right, we can first run GIPA using a PlaceholderCommitment that has null commitment keys and null commitments. Then run the TIPA polynomial commitment code on just left.
I haven't made this change yet, but commenting here to make note of this as a possible plan forward.
But as currently implemented, the placeholder commitment which represents the scalar value, is empty, which means that the scalar value is not included in the challenge generation for GIPA.
Originally, the placeholder commitment would return the scalar message to ensure it was included in the challenge. However, this makes the placeholder commitment non-doubly-homomorphic and so when extending the structured scalar message implementation to work without trusted setup (for the transparent polynomial implementation), this was removed.
The problem with using TIPA black-box as I am right now is that it attempts to calculate the structured KZG polynomial commitment proof for both
left
andright
. We would want to extract the polynomial commitment proving and verification code from the main prove and verify methods, so that they can be called separately forleft
andright
.Then to do TIPA for
left
and a structured scalar message forright
, we can first run GIPA using aPlaceholderCommitment
that has null commitment keys and null commitments. Then run the TIPA polynomial commitment code on justleft
.I haven't made this change yet, but commenting here to make note of this as a possible plan forward.
Originally posted by @nirvantyagi in #3 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: