Skip to content
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

Split out blind sign functionality into a seperate draft #42

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 1, 2022

Conversation

tplooker
Copy link
Member

Following discussion in the working group chat and conversation in issues #29 and #28. This PR attempts to move this forward by splitting the current draft into two:

  1. Core Draft - Responsible for defining the core BBS Signature Scheme operations sign, verify, spkgen and spkverify
  2. Extension Draft - Responsible for defining the blind sign functionality

Copy link
Contributor

@OR13 OR13 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

strong +1 to splitting this... hopefully it can proceed faster.

1. Signatures can be created blinded or un-blinded.

2. Traditional signature schemes require the entire signature and message to be disclosed during verification. BBS allows a fast and small zero-knowledge signature proof of knowledge to be created from the signature and the public key. This allows the signature holder to selectively reveal any number of signed messages to another entity (none, all, or any number in between).
1. Traditional signature schemes require the entire signature and message to be disclosed during verification. BBS allows a fast and small zero-knowledge signature proof of knowledge to be created from the signature and the public key. This allows the signature holder to selectively reveal any number of signed messages to another entity (none, all, or any number in between).
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This could probably be restructured since there's only 1 point.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Have restructured now thanks @andrewwhitehead

@tplooker
Copy link
Member Author

tplooker commented Feb 1, 2022

Multiple approvals, open multiple days, discussed on previous working group call and in #28, no net change in functionality just splitting it across two documents can re-merge later if required, merging.

@tplooker tplooker merged commit 2be9472 into main Feb 1, 2022
@tplooker tplooker deleted the tl/split-draft branch February 1, 2022 20:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants