You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is a tracking issue for any remaining changes to the circuits. These should be done in one changeset and the proving keys regenerated.
put B_d != id check into the AddressVar (see discord discussion here). Currently we include a check that the diversified base is not integrity separately, but to avoid forgetting this check, it would be prudent to include everywhere an AddressVar is allocated
Move the check that ak is not identity into AllocVar for AuthorizationKeyVar (same logic as above, ensure that this critical check cannot be left out)
## Describe your changes
This PR contains protocol spec changes from internal feedback
## Issue ticket number and link
Related to #4280Closes#4342
## Checklist before requesting a review
- [x] If this code contains consensus-breaking changes, I have added the
"consensus-breaking" label. Otherwise, I declare my belief that there
are not consensus-breaking changes, for the following reason:
> spec only
---------
Signed-off-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Lúcás Meier <[email protected]>
This is a tracking issue for any remaining changes to the circuits. These should be done in one changeset and the proving keys regenerated.
B_d != id
check into theAddressVar
(see discord discussion here). Currently we include a check that the diversified base is not integrity separately, but to avoid forgetting this check, it would be prudent to include everywhere anAddressVar
is allocatedak
is not identity intoAllocVar
forAuthorizationKeyVar
(same logic as above, ensure that this critical check cannot be left out)enforce_not_equal
hereThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: