Re: Last Call for Comments on Crypto-Conditions

Schnorr signatures have been surprisingly difficult to use in crypto
currency contexts.

My sense is that Blockstream and Cosci and perhaps others are working to
deal with the issues from
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/425 while
also having an aggregate multisignature method.

So basically we need a standard, a proposal is expected sometime in 2017.

There are slight differences the ECDSA format between Bitcoin/Ripple and
Ethereum. Bitcoin is DER encoded r,s. Ethereum is a custom encoding of
v,r,s. I ran into this yesterday. I've been meaning to look at the state of
conversion software between the formats.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:35 PM Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:

> > I’d like to see an ECDSA-Koblitz signature (AKA secp256k1) supported,
> for both Ethereum & Bitcoin.
>
> And Ripple!
>
> I'd be supportive of this. What are your/Blockstream's current thoughts
> about ECDSA vs Schnorr? Last time we spoke it sounded like everyone agreed
> that Schnorr was the future. Any reason to go with ECDSA other than the
> fact that it is currently more widely used?
>
> On that note - is there an I-D/RFC for secp256k1-schnorr? If not, we'd be
> very interested in co-sponsoring and/or contributing to one.
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 5:28 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> On 14 December 2016 at 04:06, Christopher Allen <
> ChristopherA@blockstream.com> wrote:
>
> I’d like to see an ECDSA-Koblitz signature (AKA secp256k1) supported, for
> both Ethereum & Bitcoin.
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> — Christopher Allen
>
>
>