[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[GNUnet-SVN] [taler-exchange] 02/02: Do we really need to mention post-q
From: |
gnunet |
Subject: |
[GNUnet-SVN] [taler-exchange] 02/02: Do we really need to mention post-quantum RSA? lol |
Date: |
Thu, 18 May 2017 14:40:54 +0200 |
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
burdges pushed a commit to branch master
in repository exchange.
commit 4637a1ea6b0386f92901a13fa5844a78fdfc941a
Author: Jeffrey Burdges <address@hidden>
AuthorDate: Thu May 18 14:35:34 2017 +0200
Do we really need to mention post-quantum RSA? lol
---
doc/paper/taler_FC2016.txt | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/paper/taler_FC2016.txt b/doc/paper/taler_FC2016.txt
index 60a7c0d..80e590c 100644
--- a/doc/paper/taler_FC2016.txt
+++ b/doc/paper/taler_FC2016.txt
@@ -298,9 +298,8 @@ importance or even existence.
> scheme still seems to offer the best security/performance trade-off,
> and we also value simplicity and extensive peer-review of the
> cryptographic primitives used for production systems. So far, none
-> of the schemes compete. For example, Bernstein recently proposed an
-> interesting PostQuantum blind-signature scheme, but the keys are too
-> large to be useful in practice.
+> of the schemes compete. In particular, the elliptic curve blind
+> signatures mostly require extra round trips.
However, providing proofs of the statement to be signed is important,
and a potential attack on the presented scheme may illustrate this. The
--
To stop receiving notification emails like this one, please contact
address@hidden