W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > December 2016

Re: Last Call for Comments on Crypto-Conditions

From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 14:30:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+eFz_JSobQZm3kTR4LvZoOT2AgF+Oq9E0XfQYwRkFVmTVZbyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "zaki@manian.org" <zaki@manian.org>
Cc: Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Christopher Allen <ChristopherA@blockstream.com>, Steven Roose <stevenroose@gmail.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
Adding a secp256k1 type to crypto-conditions is as simple as picking an
encoding format for the public key and signature (as with ED25519) and
specifying any parameters that are required (as with the RSA PSS parameters

I think we can safely add both Schnorr and ECDSA based types if there is
demand but I'd be inclined to do ECDSA first given the wider use and the
fact that crypto-conditions in and of themselves provide multi-sign

On 21 December 2016 at 18:08, zaki@manian.org <zaki@manian.org> wrote:

> 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
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 12:31:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:13:59 UTC