Author

Topic: Rangeproof in Mimblewimble? (Read 944 times)

full member
Activity: 315
Merit: 103
October 18, 2016, 04:46:24 AM
#5
looking pretty controversial in current form
You are calling a binary decomposition range proof controversial? Really?


What are you talking about? Don't see any security proofs there: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt. Please provide a link.
staff
Activity: 4172
Merit: 8419
October 18, 2016, 04:39:47 AM
#4
looking pretty controversial in current form
You are calling a binary decomposition range proof controversial? Really?
full member
Activity: 315
Merit: 103
October 06, 2016, 06:02:02 AM
#3
Any security proofs behind both CT/MW schemes? both are looking pretty controversial in current form
staff
Activity: 4172
Merit: 8419
October 05, 2016, 04:03:05 PM
#2
First of all, I must say its a very interesting idea. Somehow I couldn't find efficient NIZK range proofs and the mimblewimble paper kind of assumes it as "obvious".

Maybe I missed something but please point me to some efficient implementation of range proofs.

BTW the whitepaper is here
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizardry/mimblewimble.txt

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/confidential-transactions-content-privacy-for-bitcoin-transactions-1085273
legendary
Activity: 1001
Merit: 1003
October 05, 2016, 11:18:02 AM
#1
First of all, I must say its a very interesting idea. Somehow I couldn't find efficient NIZK range proofs and the mimblewimble paper kind of assumes it as "obvious".

Maybe I missed something but please point me to some efficient implementation of range proofs.

BTW the whitepaper is here
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizardry/mimblewimble.txt
Jump to: