Timeline for How does SpeedyMuSig compare to MuSig2?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2023 at 9:17 | vote | accept | Michael Folkson | ||
| Aug 25, 2022 at 23:36 | comment | added | user1055568 | Thanks @real-or-random, would you have any thoughts on musig2 + BIP-32 style nonces? bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/115036/… | |
| Aug 5, 2022 at 14:56 | comment | added | real-or-random | (Disclosure: I'm one of the authors of the MuSig2 paper.) I'm pretty sure that the two mentioned drawbacks in SpeedyMuSig (less flexible nonce aggregation and rejecting duplicate nonces) are artifacts of the proof technique used by CKM, and the scheme would be secure with O(n) nonce aggregation and without the check for duplicate keys. Disclaimer: As long as we don't have a proper proof that establishes the security of the modified, "I'm pretty sure" is not a formal proof and there can be dragons. Don't implement a scheme because someone said in comment on StackExchange that it's secure. | |
| S Aug 4, 2022 at 15:52 | review | First answers | |||
| Aug 11, 2022 at 8:07 | |||||
| S Aug 4, 2022 at 15:52 | history | answered | user1055568 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |