Re: Crypto-condition Update

Credit actually goes to Zaki for suggesting the word "composite" when we
were brainstorming succinct ways to describe this as a signature scheme

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com> wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Last week, Jehan, Zaki, Evan and I met at Jehan's office to work on
> cryptoconditions, specifically the conversation turned to two things a)
> changing the scheme from a condition/fulfillment scheme to more of a
> signature scheme and b) fleshing out the multi-message functionality.
>
> After the conversation it turned out that the devil with multi-message is
> really in the details. So what I ended up doing over the weekend is update
> the spec with the change to make it act more like a signature scheme. This
> turned out to be a *hugely* simplifying change and I'm very happy with it,
> nice work Jehan, Zaki, Evan!
>
> As for adding multi-message support, I now believe that it should be
> out-of-scope for v1. It requires the ability to destructure objects and
> directing the right parts of the signed message to the right conditions. We
> should still work on it, but I think it's a very valid choice if we decide
> not to include it in v1. Neither Jehan's nor Five Bells use cases require
> it as a feature and it can be easily added in the future by adding a new
> condition type to do the destructuring.
>
> Note that we may also change the name of the scheme: Evan suggested
> "Composite Signatures" - which is the front-runner so far. But I didn't
> want to make a ton of nomenclature changes until we've all agreed on a new
> set of terminology.
>
> Here's the PR - all of the changes and rationale are described therein:
>
> https://github.com/interledger/five-bells-condition/pull/14
>
> - Stefan
>



-- 
Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
[image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com>