256-bit custody atoms for better alignment with rest of the spec and greater efficiency #1705
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
dankrad
commented
Apr 30, 2020
dankrad
commented
Apr 30, 2020
dankrad
commented
Apr 30, 2020
dankrad
commented
Apr 30, 2020
|
This should be ready for review, though I will probably go through the old tests again to make sure I haven't missed anything. |
This was referenced May 13, 2020
djrtwo
force-pushed
the
dankrad-custody-256bit
branch
from
77fc50e to
de03ebb
Compare
# Conflicts: # specs/phase1/beacon-chain.md
hwwhww
force-pushed
the
dankrad-custody-256bit
branch
from
bda206b to
8697b30
Compare
hwwhww
reviewed
Jun 15, 2020
hwwhww
approved these changes
Jun 15, 2020
protolambda
reviewed
Jun 15, 2020
0.01 bit proof of custody [depends on 256 bit custody atoms]
…etails with correct validator operation.
Co-authored-by: Hsiao-Wei Wang <hwwang156@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Hsiao-Wei Wang <hwwang156@gmail.com>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
We previously chose 48 byte custody atoms because of the sizes of field elements in BLS signatures. However, this misalignment is not pretty when compared to the rest of the spec, and will also cause significant overhead as 48 byte integers are more expensive to handle than 32 bytes.
In comparison, the switch to 32 bytes will only require one secret re-sharing (from one prime to another prime) every nine days, so it will add only very minor overhead for MPC validators.