Skip to content

feat: add ct functions and new operations to secp256k1 - #44

Draft
LesterEvSe wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
feat/ct-funcs
Draft

feat: add ct functions and new operations to secp256k1#44
LesterEvSe wants to merge 3 commits into
masterfrom
feat/ct-funcs

Conversation

@LesterEvSe

@LesterEvSe LesterEvSe commented Aug 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator
  • This PR suggests a bug fix and I've added the necessary tests.
  • This PR introduces a new feature and I've discussed the update in an Issue or with the team.
  • This PR is just a minor change like a typo fix.

aritkulova and others added 3 commits August 6, 2026 17:47
@aritkulova
Convert functions for u8 (#34)
3e4698c 
* added convert functions for u8

* commented out eq_256 (will be available with pr#30)

* added split and safe_convert functions

* refactored widening functions

* linting

* refactored u8 functions

* typo

* removed unused import
@aritkulova
Convert functions for u1 (#35)
276a10e 
* added assert_eq_bool

* added convert functions for u1
@LesterEvSe
feat: add ct functions and new operations to secp256k1
1e35719
@LesterEvSe LesterEvSe self-assigned this Aug 14, 2026
@LesterEvSe LesterEvSe added the enhancement New feature or request label Aug 14, 2026
@LesterEvSe LesterEvSe linked an issue Aug 14, 2026 that may be closed by this pull request
wishlist: add CT functions #6
Open
@apoelstra

apoelstra commented Aug 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

For computing vH it's plausibly cheaper to directly compute this by an addition ladder. If the asset ID is known, you can embed a lookup table in your program which is potentially very fast (at an extreme, you could plausibly compute an entire 2^64 sized lookup table and then it's one lookup, though with a deep merkle tree). But even if it's not, because you can bound the size of v at 2^64 even just double-and-adding 64 times is probably cheaper than a linear verify.

Then I suspect that to verify an asset commitment, it'd be faster to take an "exact value proof", which is basically a Schnorr signature on commit - vH, rather than to take an abf and vbf.

Lots of options here. We should probably make a harness that can generate all these, including lots of different kinds of lookup tables, and compare the cost.

@LesterEvSe

LesterEvSe commented Aug 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Ok, thanks. I will think how to do it better

Base automatically changed from dev to master August 24, 2026 11:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@apoelstra apoelstra Awaiting requested review from apoelstra
@Hrom131 Hrom131 Awaiting requested review from Hrom131

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@LesterEvSe LesterEvSe

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

wishlist: add CT functions

3 participants

@LesterEvSe @apoelstra @aritkulova