From 91895ee7a7474b734bb3ec751ade102a4959b24a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daira Hopwood Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:52:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Clarify what a note commitment opens to in 'Omission in Zerocash security proof' section. Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood --- protocol/protocol.tex | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/protocol/protocol.tex b/protocol/protocol.tex index a99dbda..4fd70a2 100644 --- a/protocol/protocol.tex +++ b/protocol/protocol.tex @@ -423,6 +423,7 @@ electronic commerce and payment, financial privacy, proof of work, zero knowledg \newcommand{\AuthPrivateLength}{\mathsf{\ell_{\AuthPrivate}}} \newcommand{\AuthPublicOld}[1]{\mathsf{a^{old}_{pk,\mathnormal{#1}}}} \newcommand{\AuthPrivateOld}[1]{\mathsf{a^{old}_{sk,\mathnormal{#1}}}} +\newcommand{\AuthEmphPublicOld}[1]{\mathsf{a^{old}_{\textsf{\textbf{pk}},\mathnormal{#1}}}} \newcommand{\AuthPublicOldX}[1]{\mathsf{a^{old}_{pk,\mathrm{#1}}}} \newcommand{\AuthPrivateOldX}[1]{\mathsf{a^{old}_{sk,\mathrm{#1}}}} \newcommand{\AuthPublicNew}[1]{\mathsf{a^{new}_{pk,\mathnormal{#1}}}} @@ -495,6 +496,7 @@ electronic commerce and payment, financial privacy, proof of work, zero knowledg % Notes \newcommand{\Value}{\mathsf{v}} \newcommand{\ValueNew}[1]{\mathsf{v^{new}_\mathnormal{#1}}} +\newcommand{\ValueOld}[1]{\mathsf{v^{old}_\mathnormal{#1}}} \newcommand{\NoteTuple}[1]{\mathbf{n}_{#1}} \newcommand{\NoteType}{\mathsf{Note}} \newcommand{\NotePlaintext}[1]{\mathbf{np}_{#1}} @@ -510,6 +512,7 @@ electronic commerce and payment, financial privacy, proof of work, zero knowledg \newcommand{\NoteAddressPreRandLength}{\mathsf{\ell_{\NoteAddressPreRand}}} \newcommand{\NoteCommitS}{\mathsf{s}} \newcommand{\cm}{\mathsf{cm}} +\newcommand{\cmOld}[1]{\mathsf{{cm}^{old}_\mathnormal{#1}}} \newcommand{\cmOldX}[1]{\mathsf{{cm}^{old}_\mathrm{#1}}} \newcommand{\cmNew}[1]{\mathsf{{cm}^{new}_\mathnormal{#1}}} \newcommand{\snOldX}[1]{\mathsf{{sn}^{old}_\mathrm{#1}}} @@ -4048,7 +4051,10 @@ For the ``$\Adversary$ violates Condition I'' case, the proof says: \end{itemize} In fact the openings do not contain $\AuthPrivateOld{i}$; they contain -$\AuthPublicOld{i}$. +$\AuthEmphPublicOld{i}$. (In \Zcash $\cmOld{i}$ opens directly to +$(\AuthEmphPublicOld{i}, \ValueOld{i}, \NoteAddressRandOld{i})$, and +in \Zerocash it opens to $(\ValueOld{i}, +\Commit{\NoteCommitS}(\AuthEmphPublicOld{i}, \NoteAddressRandOld{i})$.) A similar error occurs in the argument for the ``$\Adversary$ violates Condition II'' case. @@ -4127,6 +4133,7 @@ The errors in the proof of Ledger Indistinguishability mentioned in \begin{itemize} \item Clarify the consensus rule preventing double-spends. + \item Clarify what a \noteCommitment opens to in \crossref{crprf}. \end{itemize} \introlist