You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I know you're not currently actively developing this (though maybe there is more interest in weird curves now that the GLV patent has expired...), but I thought I'd send you a note-- close the issue when you've seen it. :p
Your existing fermat inverse is super duper fast because you mostly only need to work over the base field and mersenne numbers result in really nice ladders but there is a new approach that could be faster that you might be interested in: See https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/blob/master/doc/safegcd_implementation.md which describes the implementation in libsecp256k1 (and links to the safegcd paper that inspired the work).
At 256 bits the speedup over a ladder is enormous, for 2^127-1 I expect it to be faster but it's possible that it wouldn't be. If you're ever interested in trying it out, feel free to drop me a line. It should be trivial to modify our code for your sized numbers (it already works but will waste some time due to working with 256 bit numbers) -- I would have done it just to post benchmarks but that would have required me to figure out how to benchmark your code. :P
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I know you're not currently actively developing this (though maybe there is more interest in weird curves now that the GLV patent has expired...), but I thought I'd send you a note-- close the issue when you've seen it. :p
Your existing fermat inverse is super duper fast because you mostly only need to work over the base field and mersenne numbers result in really nice ladders but there is a new approach that could be faster that you might be interested in: See https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/blob/master/doc/safegcd_implementation.md which describes the implementation in libsecp256k1 (and links to the safegcd paper that inspired the work).
At 256 bits the speedup over a ladder is enormous, for 2^127-1 I expect it to be faster but it's possible that it wouldn't be. If you're ever interested in trying it out, feel free to drop me a line. It should be trivial to modify our code for your sized numbers (it already works but will waste some time due to working with 256 bit numbers) -- I would have done it just to post benchmarks but that would have required me to figure out how to benchmark your code. :P
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: