forked from zcash/zips
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[WIP] Inconsistency fixes for ZIPs 226 and 227 #18
Closed
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
Co-authored-by: daniben31 <danielbenarroch92@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Deirdre Connolly <durumcrustulum@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org> Co-authored-by: Jonathan S. Rouach <jon@rouach.net> Co-authored-by: str4d <thestr4d@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paul <lauxpaul@protonmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
Includes improvements to mathematical notation, and typographical edits. Co-authored-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org> Co-authored-by: Deirdre Connolly <durumcrustulum@gmail.com>
This covers the changes made to derive the issuance key independently of the Orchard key structure, using the techniques from [ZIP 32](https://zips.z.cash/zip-0032).
…ations (#13) Minor changes to the Security and Privacy Considerations to make it more in line with the format specified in ZIP 0.
This rearranges and rewrites various sections of the ZIP to make it more in line with the suggestions in ZIP 0. It also updates the Split Notes, Circuit Statement and Burn Mechanism sections with more information.
This adds in the reference links to the test vectors and reference implementations corresponding to the ZSA Protocol. Some corrections to the notation for better consistency and some updates to the formulae for syncing with the implementation are also included here.
…ed and added ref to specs doc
✅ Deploy Preview for zcash-zips-qedit ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
I have created #79 to address updates to the use of capitalization for terminology like MUST etc. The other action points seem to have been addressed in subsequent updates, so I am closing this PR for now. |
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.
ZIP 226 and 227 review: Overall comments
Better draw the relationship between ZIP 226 and 227: Avoid to force the reader to bounce from 226 to 227 and back. Try to keep the relation between both ZIPs as linear as possible and define key common terms in 227, then refer to 227 from 226 (instead of defining things in both and bouncing from one to another)
Use consistent capitalization when referring to terms defined in the TERMINOLOGY
Change
e.g.:
toe.g.
Make sure orders are all consistent when using tuples: some arguments orders are inconsistent.
block chain
->blockchain
(everywhere)Be consistent with indices over summations.
\sum_{i=1}^n
notation instead of\sum_{\forall i \in S}
which is heavier and not consistent with the Zcash specs that use the\sum_{i=1}^{n}
notation.Shouldn't we use the notations for the group operations defined in 4.1.7.2 of the Specs instead of sums everywhere?
Some
\forall
are unnecessary and can safely be removed to simplify notationsBe consistent in the order in which subscripts an hyperscripts are used. e.g.
t_{i}^{n}
andt^{n}_{i}
are equivalent but inconsistent. It's better to have a systematic approach and e.g. always define the subscript firstt_{i}^{n}
TODO: Check if we can use latex macros in
rst
files, this will standardize notations and save a lot of typos.ZIP 226
Orchard.Output
must probably beNoteCommit^{Orchard}.Output
cm^{OrchardZSA}
is that the same ascm_{ZSA}
? Fixed in Corrections and addition of reference links #16Backward compatibility
sectionAssetBase^{protocol}_{assetID}
, the upper and subscripts are missing many times. To fix.AssetBase^{protocol}
as an alias ofAssetBase^{protocol}_{assetID}
and also defineAssetBase
as an alias ofAssetBase^{protocol}_{assetID}
when the protocol is clear from context, e.g. in ZIPs 226 and 227, it is clear that the protocol that is built upon is Orchard, so it may be worth and clear enough to say thatAssetBase = AssetBase^{Orchard}_{assetID}
when the notations become too heavy (e.g. whenassetBase
needs to be used in a subscript or "exponent"). - DONE in ZIP227cv^{net}
, the input order to theValueCommit
function isn't consistent compared tobvk
in Burn Mechanism section. Use convention:v
first,AssetBase
second (everywhere)assetBurn
to be consistent with the argument order ofValueCommit
bvk
equality,assetBurn
is defined a set (not a vector btw), so we sum over the set. Then do I get it properly thatj
is the index related to the the set assetBurn? What's the cardinality of this set? (n
should correspond to the number of action descriptions with value commitment cv^{net}). I don't get thercv_{i,j}
notation don't we miss a term in the sum overassetBurn
? Isn't it smthg like\sum_{j=1}^{|assetBurn|} cv_{j} ValueCommit ....
? where|S|
is the set cardinality.ZIP 227 - EDIT: All changes related to ZIP 227 have been moved in a separate PR (#20)
purpose
bepurpose'
?'
indicates that BIP hardened derivation is used: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0043.mediawiki#purpose'
omitted deliberately here? Edit: I can see the'
was added on the constant227'
a few lines below. It's unclear and error prone IMHO to havem/purpose/coin_type'/account'
. We should probably use all'
at the same place instead of spreading them over different lines.Size
andBytes
columns are inconsistent. Stick toBytes
orSize (in bytes)
and make sure only numbers are in the column (removebytes
suffix in column entries)