Tweak DLEq README and rename the experimental_cross_group feature to just experimental

This commit is contained in:
Luke Parker 2022-07-07 09:52:10 -04:00
parent 7cbdcc8ae6
commit b69337a3a6
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: F9F1386DB1E119B6
4 changed files with 20 additions and 19 deletions

View file

@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ transcript = { package = "flexible-transcript", path = "../transcript", features
[features]
serialize = []
experimental_cross_group = ["multiexp"]
experimental = ["multiexp"]
secure_capacity_difference = []
# Only applies to cross_group, yet is default to ensure security

View file

@ -1,19 +1,19 @@
# Discrete Log Equality
Implementation of discrete log equality both within a group and across groups,
the latter being extremely experimental, for curves implementing the ff/group
APIs. This library has not undergone auditing and the cross-group DLEq proof has
no formal proofs available.
Implementation of discrete log equality proofs for curves implementing
`ff`/`group`. There is also a highly experimental cross-group DLEq proof, under
the `experimental` feature, which has no formal proofs available yet is
available here regardless. This library has NOT undergone auditing.
### Cross-Group DLEq
The present cross-group DLEq is based off
[MRL-0010](https://web.getmonero.org/resources/research-lab/pubs/MRL-0010.pdf),
which isn't computationally correct as while it proves both keys have the same
discrete-log value for the G'/H' component, yet doesn't prove a lack of a G/H
component. Accordingly, it was augmented with a pair of Schnorr Proof of
Knowledges, proving a known G'/H' component, guaranteeing a lack of a G/H
component (assuming an unknown relation between G/H and G'/H').
discrete logarithm for their `G'`/`H'` component, it doesn't prove a lack of a
`G`/`H` component. Accordingly, it was augmented with a pair of Schnorr Proof of
Knowledges, proving a known `G'`/`H'` component, guaranteeing a lack of a
`G`/`H` component (assuming an unknown relation between `G`/`H` and `G'`/`H'`).
The challenges for the ring signatures were also merged, removing one-element
from each bit's proof with only a slight reduction to challenge security (as
@ -32,18 +32,19 @@ The following variants are available:
signature size for both bits yet decreasing the amount of
commitments/challenges in total.
- `EfficientLinear`. This provides ring signatures in the form ((R_G, R_H), s),
instead of (e, s), and accordingly enables a batch verification of their final
step. It is the most performant, and also the largest, option.
- `EfficientLinear`. This provides ring signatures in the form
`((R_G, R_H), s)`, instead of `(e, s)`, and accordingly enables a batch
verification of their final step. It is the most performant, and also the
largest, option.
- `CompromiseLinear`. This provides signatures in the form ((R_G, R_H), s) AND
- `CompromiseLinear`. This provides signatures in the form `((R_G, R_H), s)` AND
proves for 2-bits at a time. While this increases the amount of steps in
verifying the ring signatures, which aren't batch verified, and decreases the
amount of items batched (an operation which grows in efficiency with
quantity), it strikes a balance between speed and size.
The following numbers are from benchmarks performed with Secp256k1/Ed25519 on a
Intel i7-118567:
The following numbers are from benchmarks performed with k256/curve25519_dalek
on a Intel i7-118567:
| Algorithm | Size | Performance |
|--------------------|-------------------------|-------------------|
@ -52,11 +53,11 @@ Intel i7-118567:
| `EfficientLinear` | 65145 bytes (+46%) | 122ms (-22%) |
| `CompromiseLinear` | 48765 bytes (+9%) | 137ms (-12%) |
CompromiseLinear is the best choce by only being marginally sub-optimal
`CompromiseLinear` is the best choice by only being marginally sub-optimal
regarding size, yet still achieving most of the desired performance
improvements. That said, neither the original postulation (which had flaws) nor
any construction here has been proven nor audited. Accordingly, they are solely
experimental, and none are recommended.
All proofs are suffixed Linear in the hope a logarithmic proof makes itself
All proofs are suffixed "Linear" in the hope a logarithmic proof makes itself
available, which would likely immediately become the most efficient option.

View file

@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ use group::prime::PrimeGroup;
#[cfg(feature = "serialize")]
use std::io::{self, ErrorKind, Error, Read, Write};
#[cfg(feature = "experimental_cross_group")]
#[cfg(feature = "experimental")]
pub mod cross_group;
#[cfg(test)]

View file

@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
#[cfg(feature = "experimental_cross_group")]
#[cfg(feature = "experimental")]
mod cross_group;
use hex_literal::hex;