Etherum Reddit

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

Question: is there an ethereum messaging system, that actually works?

As the title says: i was questioning, if I could send a message to another eth address - without somehow "paying" for it. Or even IF I need to pay for the message.. I heard of whisper but cant find any usable app"dapp. submitted...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 8 months ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...