key generation: use standard blinding instead.#3
Closed
rustyrussell wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
Closed
Conversation
We use the counter as a blinding factor for payments to either side, and the per-commitment-secret for the revocation keys. We were also missing a place where we sent the first revocation key, so fix that (has to be after initial open handshake, once we know their base point). Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
rustyrussell
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2016
rustyrussell
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2016
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Collaborator
Author
Collaborator
Author
|
Turns out this is too simple, as it requires 33 bytes additional storage per tx for a watcher. Closing. |
rustyrussell
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 19, 2016
I missed this somehow from the spec. Reported-by: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
rustyrussell
referenced
this pull request
in rustyrussell/bolts
Jul 4, 2017
…heck fee The recipient should check the fee is valid, otherwise we might get fun overflow games. So might as well check that it's better than the previous offer (as the sender is already required to do). Changing BOLT #3 to define the mutual close tx is next patch. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
rustyrussell
referenced
this pull request
in rustyrussell/bolts
Jul 4, 2017
…heck fee The recipient should check the fee is valid, otherwise we might get fun overflow games. So might as well check that it's better than the previous offer (as the sender is already required to do). Changing BOLT #3 to define the mutual close tx is next patch. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
rustyrussell
referenced
this pull request
in rustyrussell/bolts
Jul 11, 2017
…heck fee The recipient should check the fee is valid, otherwise we might get fun overflow games. So might as well check that it's better than the previous offer (as the sender is already required to do). Changing BOLT #3 to define the mutual close tx is next patch. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
fjahr
pushed a commit
to fjahr/lightning-mw
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2019
fjahr
pushed a commit
to fjahr/lightning-mw
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2019
darosior
added a commit
to darosior/lightning-rfc
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2019
darosior
added a commit
to darosior/lightning-rfc
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 2, 2019
NIT but it rendered poorly when tabs where used (whereas spaces were previously used)
t-bast
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 5, 2019
Merged
ifuensan
added a commit
to ifuensan/bolts
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 27, 2023
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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 use the counter as a blinding factor for payments to either side,
and the per-commitment-secret for the revocation keys.
We were also missing a place where we sent the first revocation key,
so fix that (has to be after initial open handshake, once we know their
base point).
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell rusty@rustcorp.com.au