New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Note that aggsig paper was rejected #479

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@ysangkok
Contributor

ysangkok commented Dec 19, 2017

No description provided.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Dec 19, 2017

Contributor

Thanks. You link to a libsecp256k1 PR as a source for the Bellare-Neven paper being implemented, but I don't see any reference to that in the PR comments, the commit message, or the diff. I haven't been following the Schnorr implementation discussion, so I'm not in a position to doubt this assertion, but it would be nice to have some confirmation that the algorithm being implemented is the one from the paper.

Contributor

harding commented Dec 19, 2017

Thanks. You link to a libsecp256k1 PR as a source for the Bellare-Neven paper being implemented, but I don't see any reference to that in the PR comments, the commit message, or the diff. I haven't been following the Schnorr implementation discussion, so I'm not in a position to doubt this assertion, but it would be nice to have some confirmation that the algorithm being implemented is the one from the paper.

@apoelstra

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@apoelstra

apoelstra Dec 19, 2017

Member

That PR is indeed for Bellare-Neven. It is not API-complete and especially not doccomment-complete, hence the missing reference.

Member

apoelstra commented Dec 19, 2017

That PR is indeed for Bellare-Neven. It is not API-complete and especially not doccomment-complete, hence the missing reference.

@harding

@apoelstra Thanks for clarifying.

@ysangkok Thanks for providing the update. As a nitpick, maybe instead of saying "has been implemented", say "is being implemented" so we don't give the impression that the work is entirely done yet. Besides that nit, this LGTM.

@ysangkok

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ysangkok

ysangkok Dec 20, 2017

Contributor

@harding I have changed the tense and added a link to the CoreDev Event website.

Contributor

ysangkok commented Dec 20, 2017

@harding I have changed the tense and added a link to the CoreDev Event website.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Dec 20, 2017

Contributor

@ysangkok Looks great, thanks!

Contributor

harding commented Dec 20, 2017

@ysangkok Looks great, thanks!

@jnewbery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jnewbery

jnewbery Dec 27, 2017

Contributor

I don't think that old blog posts should be updated to be kept current. This isn't supposed to be living documentation.

Work on Schnorr signatures is ongoing, and we're likely to see lots of activity in 2018. We shouldn't try to keep this old blog post up to date as Schnorr signature, signature aggregation and batch validation develops.

So weak concept NACK from me, but I won't stand in the way if other people think this is worthwhile.

Contributor

jnewbery commented Dec 27, 2017

I don't think that old blog posts should be updated to be kept current. This isn't supposed to be living documentation.

Work on Schnorr signatures is ongoing, and we're likely to see lots of activity in 2018. We shouldn't try to keep this old blog post up to date as Schnorr signature, signature aggregation and batch validation develops.

So weak concept NACK from me, but I won't stand in the way if other people think this is worthwhile.

@ysangkok

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ysangkok

ysangkok Jan 2, 2018

Contributor

I see great value in having current roadmaps. Maybe this just shouldn't be a blog post.

Contributor

ysangkok commented Jan 2, 2018

I see great value in having current roadmaps. Maybe this just shouldn't be a blog post.

@harding

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@harding

harding Apr 27, 2018

Contributor

This PR hasn't gained any traction in several months, so I'm going to close it (but it can be reopened if there's disagreement). If I could go back in time, I'd suggest that we shouldn't have published the blog post about signature aggregation on BitcoinCore.org, as potential future directions for Bitcoin Core and the Bitcoin protocol should probably be posted on the websites of the people directly working on those proposals, as Blockstream did for their subsequent post about MuSig signature aggregation.

@ysangkok thanks again for working on this. I'm sorry this isn't the outcome you wanted.

Contributor

harding commented Apr 27, 2018

This PR hasn't gained any traction in several months, so I'm going to close it (but it can be reopened if there's disagreement). If I could go back in time, I'd suggest that we shouldn't have published the blog post about signature aggregation on BitcoinCore.org, as potential future directions for Bitcoin Core and the Bitcoin protocol should probably be posted on the websites of the people directly working on those proposals, as Blockstream did for their subsequent post about MuSig signature aggregation.

@ysangkok thanks again for working on this. I'm sorry this isn't the outcome you wanted.

@harding harding closed this Apr 27, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment