Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC33C013E for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:01:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FB72153B for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:01:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tF9lb3oa2a-k for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:01:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi1-f171.google.com (mail-oi1-f171.google.com [209.85.167.171]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB0420134 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-f171.google.com with SMTP id g6so7110277oiy.1 for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:01:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Lp7bdGbEjh+WtqjhdXVsXKNpG2wXjXu3EO4RXwSUVqY=; b=Af/h0vEazat+o1O7RwNr3Dva7wvsEjVR621z6aPoH6adxT8Dgo7m1RodPsezwyhlte 663kB3s8g7rmb8Gt50wFleNePnQJpxXaUYJ4kKiFGQ6biAYW1IgxFgHQYvgECe/uT0KR 0uw6wihKHNS59GdPJLZtYsO9WmI23QZnJ5B857wiKZwb5ZEsM+Da1QnoPDAiCLkH/aqW FSV9kD0R1J4URd2J/tXZuga/Nn3xZ+ejSlFrthz5g32T7wIyurTnqeiPuRPZLSSjTmM0 JzsAKQJyZQhKDZ7Pm0sOhTwfDs9nVfX5UBNF+avrmK4THjlAa66CQu/ZE+jVbTLXa9sT CBgQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Lp7bdGbEjh+WtqjhdXVsXKNpG2wXjXu3EO4RXwSUVqY=; b=JGXKwYvwHOeEiFxieRnoovgdOpOsweD2zVB5X0+9hhOTngfSLNqPc5CCNXjqIsFV3C htmBxhJ1MKFdJbHo1GgbkZthgrs7pu5RtJuvHl794YdxabXX+iOVWqqrkb9VhKXjXs71 jj3soZ7nrkJu23tkBC+zj9RzLC3OxOJ1qIYy8sU5dmmrdrQGGqBdSyOFbmXvqWZMciuS Z/sjra0fncCT656C+TPdiRpztdFItwBCQBcGa8QmzXHsWp7bg3rXP/c8RrDUFm+ial18 6EfVfW6W54TAnpy8oIGBO4KO7OYxpE0AMeu1V3QEkaA1yjluHbXk4ZuiqRVbjev2Oq2F XVLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0Fai8dLKQjRFP2wYiy6+vtuz/TMbmpqmya5IY8xB6KzlpXaq66 wYSVHqGrSkIEYT1K05EHrRmO+jvOOuDfqGDGEwZVXta2udHM X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vs/zBW23zinK562ojUA26aU2+31urtEFEY5+dqzeje96luPT+3TePJZmDqSFMuMLUivrmkb86yQudXNgGxTgUw= X-Received: by 2002:aca:a997:: with SMTP id s145mr375092oie.140.1583434897929; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:01:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Erik Aronesty Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:01:27 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:03:19 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Schnorr sigs vs pairing sigs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:01:40 -0000 Schnorr sigs rely so heavily on the masking provided by a random nonce. There are so many easy ways to introduce bias (hash + modulo, for example). Even 2 bits of bias can result in serious attacks: https://ecc2017.cs.ru.nl/slides/ecc2017-tibouchi.pdf Maybe pairing based sigs - which are slower - might be both more flexible, and better suited to secure implemetnations?