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
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 27, 2023. It is now read-only.
Is there any reason why we can't use fe, modulus, and q directly? For example, I want to implement the BBS+ signature scheme using this library and it involves operations on fe like add, sub, inverse all mod q.
I'd rather not do it in BigInt and duplicate the code you have written here. I don't mind submitting a PR to do so.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As far as I understand from BBS+ signature scheme you need to do arithmetic in scalar field instead of base field fe. Is that right?
At this current version, big.Int is already used for scalar fields. And we are planning to implement optimized scalar field operations soon and make it publicly available.
I agree on q that it should be used directly however for now you can reach it using g1.Q() or g2.Q().
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Is there any reason why we can't use
fe
,modulus
, andq
directly? For example, I want to implement the BBS+ signature scheme using this library and it involves operations onfe
like add, sub, inverse all modq
.I'd rather not do it in BigInt and duplicate the code you have written here. I don't mind submitting a PR to do so.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: