On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 10:33:52AM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > In light of this, I revise my proposed change to make the verification > equation > > R + sG + eP = 0.
Isn't the verification equation "R + s(-G) + eP = 0" equally good, then, since -G is a constant? (ie, at worst it's a matter of optimising the verifier for -G as well as G) If not, what's the actual performance impact of having to negate "s" as part of batch verifying ~10000 signatures? It seems like it should be trivially small to me? (scalar_negate benchmarks at 0.00359us, while ecdsa_verify benchmarks at 66us, which I believe then reduces by a factor of ~3 for batches of 10k schnorr sigs?) FWIW, I'm a fan of the formulation "s = r + H(R,P,m)p" mostly because it seems like the simplest possible way of describing the setup, and I'm all for optimising for people being able to understand what's going on. Cheers, aj _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list email@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev