Re: [bitcoin-dev] Multi party Schnorr Rust implementation

[Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

Hi Omer,

Are there any candidates for non-interactive threshold signatures?
Interactive signatures are not very suitable for air-gapped use cases.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM Omer Shlomovits via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I am working for the past few months with collaborators (in cc) on
> providing Rust reference implementations to existing multi party schemes
> for Schnorr signatures [1]. This includes aggregated signatures,
> accountable signatures (which for n out of n are multi-signatures) and
> threshold signatures (wip).
> The project can be found here:
> https://github.com/KZen-networks/multi-party-schnorr .
> We aim that if the protocol is run in a configuration of a single party it
> will be bip-schnorr [2] compliant.
>
> Hope you'll find it useful :)
> Questions, suggestions and pull requests are welcome!
>
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/KZen-networks/multi-party-schnorr/tree/master/papers
> [2] https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2331 bytes --]