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
Hello. I recently start reading GG18 and work with your code.
In feldman VSS definition it says that we need a "p" and "q" such that p | q - 1 and "p" and "q" are both primes. Then we need a generator of "q" modulus "p" and we should use it for verification.
But in your code, you use an specific point on curve as generator, and calculations are point-oriented. although it works fine, but my question is why you do that? Is it more secure? what is wrong with using numbers instead of curve points?
these are numbers I am using in my feldman code (for sepc256k1):
q = 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494337 (order of curve)
p = 36590300198991917753848431262745378881496670312187669784903231552719739032210493 (order * 316 + 1, also a prime)
generator : 20868538786266380811265443865024178980565046899815459596964866231618051563050200
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello. I recently start reading GG18 and work with your code.
In feldman VSS definition it says that we need a "p" and "q" such that p | q - 1 and "p" and "q" are both primes. Then we need a generator of "q" modulus "p" and we should use it for verification.
But in your code, you use an specific point on curve as generator, and calculations are point-oriented. although it works fine, but my question is why you do that? Is it more secure? what is wrong with using numbers instead of curve points?
these are numbers I am using in my feldman code (for sepc256k1):
q = 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494337 (order of curve)
p = 36590300198991917753848431262745378881496670312187669784903231552719739032210493 (order * 316 + 1, also a prime)
generator : 20868538786266380811265443865024178980565046899815459596964866231618051563050200
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: