I don't follow you reasoning. My post had nothing to do with, nor did it even mention, the Weierstrass form at all. It was a description of a curve in Edwards form (with a particularly simple coefficient, and defined over one of the NIST primes). I can't see why you thought it implied Weierstrass and an ensuing list of disadvantages. Your criticism seems thus misplaced; maybe it refers to some other message in the thread (or a different thread)?
Paulo. On Sat, February 1, 2014 22:38, Watson Ladd wrote: > I don't know that isogeny to a short Weierstrass curve actually solves > anything, unless we transmit the points in that manner. > But then a lot of the security gains vanish: we need to validate > points, formulas get slow, etc. > Sincerely, > Watson > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Paulo S. L. M. Barreto > <[email protected]> wrote: >> How about x^2 + y^2 = 1 + 3435*x^2*y^2 (or an isogenous curve, (-1)-twist, >> etc) over the NIST prime p_384 := 2^384 - 2^128 - 2^96 + 2^32 - 1? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Paulo. > "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little > Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." > -- Benjamin Franklin > _______________________________________________ Curves mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/curves
