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
I was about to submit a PR to add the zk-proof of paillier multiplication from cggmp21 Fig. 29 and just saw in the contributions guidelines the following: "we ask you to communicate it with us, preferably by opening an issue.".
I am adding this as a consequence of this issue from the main cggmp21 repo implementation. I agree IA requires more design and discussion but I guess this was an easy stand-alone contribution that makes sense for this repo.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, thanks for reaching out to us! Actually, I would prefer to have all ZK proofs needed for IA developed within a coordinated effort. I think developing this one piece separately now might not be a good idea as it breaks our usual flow. Usually, we develop the ZK proof, then integrate into the protocol, then we look at the whole picture (code quality, absence of unnecessary allocations, performance, and so on) and we often update the ZK proof interface to make it fit better, achieve better perf, etc.
Integrating ZK proof into cggmp21 is a strong requirement, because it's also a good opportunity to test that the proof works fine in e2e setting before releasing it.
Hi team!
I was about to submit a PR to add the zk-proof of paillier multiplication from cggmp21 Fig. 29 and just saw in the contributions guidelines the following: "we ask you to communicate it with us, preferably by opening an issue.".
I am adding this as a consequence of this issue from the main cggmp21 repo implementation. I agree IA requires more design and discussion but I guess this was an easy stand-alone contribution that makes sense for this repo.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: