-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 216
musig: add user documentation #45
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
musig: add user documentation #45
Conversation
d43e5a0
to
70758e0
Compare
70758e0
to
9125c16
Compare
9. Any signer, or central coordinator, may combine the partial signatures to obtain | ||
a complete signature using `secp256k1_musig_partial_sig_combine`. This function takes | ||
a signing session and array of MuSig partial signatures, and outputs a single | ||
Schnorr signature. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a small question: why is there no function for session closing / destruction?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, yes, we should add one that zeroes out secret fields. I think we just overlooked this.
Use monospaced font for math expressions
API in ways that could lead to accidental signatures or loss of key material. | ||
|
||
# Theory | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This paragraph uses "signers" and "participants" for the same thing. That's not necessarily bad it actually reminded me that there can be participants who are not signers (just listening -- and the code supports that). So maybe we should make that clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah I see that distinction is made below, so yes, I think it should be made here too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I changed this paragraph.
1ec5a28
to
89b7f5b
Compare
LGTM |
…Blockstream blog post
Removed some docs from include file; added link to Blockstream blog post. @real-or-random @jonasnick thoughts? |
ACK |
1 similar comment
ACK |
No description provided.