zec
/
zips
mirror of https://github.com/zcash/zips.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Update paragraph about the differences in note fields. 

Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
This commit is contained in:
Daira Hopwood 2016-09-03 04:09:58 +01:00
parent e0be611e63
commit 63893b9d1b
1 changed files with 5 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
protocol/protocol.tex
View File

@ -3070,13 +3070,15 @@ distinct openings of the \noteCommitment when Condition I or II is violated.
\nsubsection{Miscellaneous}
\begin{itemize}
\item The paper defines a \note as a tuple $(\AuthPublic, \Value,
\item The paper defines a \note as $((\AuthPublic, \TransmitPublic), \Value,
\NoteAddressRand, \NoteCommitRand, \NoteCommitS, \cm)$, whereas this
specification defines it as $(\AuthPublic, \Value, \NoteAddressRand, \NoteCommitRand)$.
The instantiation of $\Commit{\NoteCommitS}$ in section 5.1 of the paper
did not actually use $\NoteCommitS$, and neither does the new
instantiation of $\Commit{}$ in \Zcash. $\cm$ can be computed from
the other fields.
instantiation of $\Commit{}$ in \Zcash. $\TransmitPublic$ is also
not needed as part of a \note: it is not an input to $\Commit{}$ nor
is it constrained by the \Zerocash \POUR \statement or the
\Zcash \joinSplitStatement. $\cm$ can be computed from the other fields.
\item The length of proof encodings given in the paper is 288 bytes.
This differs from the 296 bytes specified in \crossref{proofencoding},
because the paper did not take into account the need to encode compressed