Range proof protocol notes #43
Conversation
|
|
| .chain(iter::once( | ||
| w * (self.t_x - a * b) + c * (delta(n, &y, &z) - self.t_x), | ||
| )) | ||
| .chain(iter::once(-self.e_blinding - c * self.t_x_blinding)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are reordered to match the standard ordering of the base points (B, \tilde{B}) both in the code and in the docs.
|
PTAL. I've made notation more consistent across RP docs, IPP docs and
The only inconsistency left is use of |
|
@hdevalence WDYT of changing |
docs/range-proof-protocol.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| \\[ | ||
| \begin{aligned} | ||
| -{\widetilde{e}} {\widetilde{B}} + A + x S + {\langle z {\mathbf{y}}^n + z^2 {\mathbf{2}}^n, {\mathbf{y}}^{-n} \circ {\mathbf{H}} \rangle} - z{\langle {\mathbf{1}}, {\mathbf{G}} \rangle} + t(x)wB \stackrel{?}{=}\\\\ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The leading minus sign causes this to be parsed by the Markdown parser as a bullet point, which breaks this equation's math.
| Inner product argument protocol | ||
| =============================== | ||
|
|
||
| These notes explain how the protocol is implemented in the [`Proof`](struct.Proof.html) type. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(just recording this for later) this seems like a reason to call it InnerProductProof or something
There was a problem hiding this comment.
doing this in #49
|
This looks good. We could maybe do another edit pass on the IPP notes later. |
This addresses issues #35, #36 and fixes a few typos in the pre-existing docs.