From 248567fbcd00e18ff26cc1d4aab79e18c78942b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daira Hopwood Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:53:25 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Correct a statement about indistinguishability of JoinSplit descriptions. Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood --- protocol/protocol.tex | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/protocol/protocol.tex b/protocol/protocol.tex index 72a1c38..e658031 100644 --- a/protocol/protocol.tex +++ b/protocol/protocol.tex @@ -1878,8 +1878,8 @@ treated like an \emph{output} value, whereas} $\vpubNew$ is treated like an Unlike original \Zerocash \cite{BCG+2014}, \Zcash does not have a distinction between Mint and Pour operations. The addition of $\vpubOld$ to a \joinSplitDescription subsumes the functionality of both Mint and Pour. Also, -\joinSplitDescriptions are indistinguishable regardless of the number of real input -\notes. +a difference in the number of real input \notes does not by itself cause two +\joinSplitDescriptions to be distinguishable. } As stated in \crossref{joinsplitdesc}, either $\vpubOld$ or $\vpubNew$ \MUST be zero. @@ -4135,6 +4135,7 @@ The errors in the proof of Ledger Indistinguishability mentioned in \item Clarify the consensus rule preventing double-spends. \item Clarify what a \noteCommitment opens to in \crossref{crprf}. \item Correct the order of arguments to $\Commit{}$ in \crossref{concretecomm}. + \item Correct a statement about indistinguishability of \joinSplitDescriptions. \end{itemize} \introlist