rich1.0npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0https://nostr.ae/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2018-09-05 📝 Original message:Correct, there is an interaction step to deduce G*k, when signing, each participant has to publishes G*ki. I didn't talk about it. That doesn't break it, but you're correct, it's not non-interactive. On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:06 AM Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra at wpsoftware.net> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:26:14AM -0400, Erik Aronesty wrote: > > Why would you call it FUD? All the weird hemming and hawing about it is > > really strange to me. The more I look into it and speak to professors > > about i, the more it seems "so trivial nobody really talks about it". > > > > 1. Generate an M of N shared public key (done in advance of signing .... > > this gets you the bitcoin address) > > 2. Generate signature fragments (this can be done offline, with no > > communication between participants) > > > > Detailed explanation with code snippets: > > > > > https://medium.com/@simulx/an-m-of-n-bitcoin-multisig-scheme-e7860ab34e7f > > > > The hemming and hawing is because you've been repeatedly told that your > scheme doesn't work, and to please implement it in some computer algebra > system so that you can see that (or so we can see where your mistake is), > and you instead continue to post incomplete/incoherent copies of the same > thing across multiple mediums - Reddit, this list, Bitcointalk, Medium, > etc ad nauseum. > > It's distracting and offensive to people who have spent a lot of time and > energy thinking about this stuff, and more importantly it causes confusion > in the public eye. Phrasings like "weird hemming and hawing" suggest that > we don't know/don't care about some insight you have, which is not true. > This is why your posts are FUD. > > For example, in your linked post I looked at every single instance of the > character 'k' and *not one of them* defined the value 'k' from which 'R' > is derived in the signing procedure. > > > Of course there is no possible value, individual signers cannot learn 'R' > at signing time without interaction, and your whole scheme is broken. Given > the number of times you've been told this, I find it hard to believe that > this was an honest mistake. > > > > Andrew > > > > -- > Andrew Poelstra > Research Director, Mathematics Department, Blockstream > Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net > Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew > > "Make it stop, my love; we were wrong to try > Never saw what we could unravel in traveling light > Nor how the trip debrides like a stack of slides > All we saw was that time is taller than space is wide" > --Joanna Newsom > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180905/c737fbbf/attachment-0001.html>