Plain ECDSA implementation #21
Conversation
| @@ -23,18 +23,18 @@ use crate::{ | |||
| /// 1. Sign message | |||
| /// 2. Verify signature | |||
| /// 3. PROFIT! | |||
| pub fn run_ecdsa(message: Nat) { | |||
| pub fn run_ecdsa_bedoza(message: Nat) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not a big fan of this bedoza / plain naming scheme -
Can we use threshold_sign and sign instead (I've been keeping this to myself, but I also generally think including names of parameters as part of a function name, such as fn sign_message(message: str) is an anti-pattern :))? And perhaps run_threshold_ecdsa for the runner?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't want to spend a lot of energy arguing naming though, so just view this as a suggestion and mark the comment as resolved :)
| } | ||
|
|
||
| #[test] | ||
| fn test_threshold_ecdsa_positive() { | ||
| fn test_threshold_ecdsa_plain_positive() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
... Continuing the comment on the naming: I think of 'threshold signing' as signing using MPC and thus 'test_threshold_ecdsa_plain' doesn't make much sense IMO :)
| /// Run a ECDSA protocol without BeDOZa | ||
| /// Used for benchmarking | ||
| /// Uses the protocol from https://cryptobook.nakov.com/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-messages | ||
| pub fn run_ecdsa_plain(message: Nat) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we're only using this for benchmarking, couldn't we just put it in the test module? I.e under
#[cfg(test)]
mod test_plain { ... }
Renamed functions to show that it runs bedoza.
Implemented plain ECDSA from https://cryptobook.nakov.com/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-messages