Add MuSig2 adaptor sig exercise in example code - #188
Conversation
|
I would like to see in the example |
427ca95 to
e502240
Compare
|
@rage-proof year late, but I came back around to the API and would have found it useful so done. |
real-or-random
left a comment
real-or-random
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Concept ACK
I wonder if this example should go to a separate function. Adaptors add quite a lot to the flow and increase the brain power necessary to follow this example, so this is probably confusing for users who want to see a minimal example. If that means duplicating some of the code, this is not a problem, I think.
| if (!secp256k1_musig_adapt(ctx, sig64, presig, adaptor_key, nonce_parity)) { | ||
| return 0; | ||
| } | ||
| /* With sig64 "on-chain" now, other party can grab the revealed adaptor secret */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| /* With sig64 "on-chain" now, other party can grab the revealed adaptor secret */ | |
| /* With sig64 "on-chain" now, other party can grab the revealed adaptor secret */ |
wrong indentation
| if (!secp256k1_musig_nonce_parity(ctx, &nonce_parity, &session)) { | ||
| return 0; | ||
| } | ||
| if (!secp256k1_musig_partial_sig_agg(ctx, presig, &session, partial_sigs, N_SIGNERS)){ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| if (!secp256k1_musig_partial_sig_agg(ctx, presig, &session, partial_sigs, N_SIGNERS)){ | |
| if (!secp256k1_musig_partial_sig_agg(ctx, presig, &session, partial_sigs, N_SIGNERS)) { |
| if (!secp256k1_musig_extract_adaptor(ctx, extracted_adaptor, sig64, presig, nonce_parity)) { | ||
| return 0; | ||
| } | ||
| if (memcmp(extracted_adaptor, adaptor_key, sizeof(adaptor_key)) != 0) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you assert this? We normally use assert for these comparisons in the other examples.
| } | ||
| printf("ok\n"); | ||
| printf("Verifying signature....."); | ||
| printf("Verifying signature and revealed adaptor....."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we're verifying the adaptor here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
errr extracting revealed secret, I guess is the phrase?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm only saying that the printf not match the code below, which still only verifies a sig.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, I added this in the wrong spot
e502240 to
94ab85b
Compare
|
a bit of renewed interest in adaptor sigs, so rebased this granted, this is likely not synced with upstream... |
3 participants
Code examples are clearer than doc explanations in a few ways, so figured I'd just submit this.