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
OpenZeppelin/cairo-contracts includes a number of utils to support secp256k1:
types for publickey and signature
traits for serialization, debug, eq
a store to save the secp256k1 public keys in a contract in a packed format
is_valid_eth_signature to check a secp256k1 signature is valid
a collection of Cairo tests and a data set to validate the implementation of the above
These tools are used internally in OpenZeppelin/cairo-contracts to implement the Eth Account. They are also available for third party projects that uses your project as a library. We use them in our starknet-modular-account project.
We have implemented the same set of tools for secp256r1 that is also supported by the starknet corelib. We would like to submit a PR that them so that we can rely on them the same way we rely on your secp256k1 implementation.
📝 Details
See PR #988 for details about the implementation. We've done the adaptation from secp256k1 to secp256r1 but, except for the mapping between the functions and features the implementation is the same.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
ericnordelo
changed the title
Add trait (Serde, Debug, Eq), store and is_valid_xxx_signature and tests for secp256r1
Add support for secp256r1
Sep 24, 2024
🧐 Motivation
OpenZeppelin/cairo-contracts
includes a number of utils to support secp256k1:These tools are used internally in
OpenZeppelin/cairo-contracts
to implement the Eth Account. They are also available for third party projects that uses your project as a library. We use them in our starknet-modular-account project.We have implemented the same set of tools for secp256r1 that is also supported by the starknet corelib. We would like to submit a PR that them so that we can rely on them the same way we rely on your secp256k1 implementation.
📝 Details
See PR #988 for details about the implementation. We've done the adaptation from secp256k1 to secp256r1 but, except for the mapping between the functions and features the implementation is the same.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: