BIP-340 (Schnorr) support #26
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thank you very much. It looks good to me. Remind me when Schnorr support is merged upstream so that I can run tests and merge this patch in. |
|
One thing to consider is whether to avoid having a separate SecKey type to avoid having two tweak functions with the same type signature. But this is a reflection of the underlying API, it has |
Compatible with jonasnick/secp256k1@372c455
Open
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Compatible with jonasnick/secp256k1@372c455
I know that bitcoin-core/secp256k1#558 hasn't been merged yet, but I am submitting this for review, and since it doesn't use the Schnorr compilation flag by default, I see no disadvantage in merging this. If the spec changes, it will probably only require updating the test vectors.
Please let me know if there is anything I need to fix!