Etherum Reddit

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

Best Practices for Diversity of Execution and Consensus Clients

The Ethereum foundation recommends we use multiple execution and consensus clients to minimize the damage from exploits against full node servers. What are the execution and consensus client combos you recommend to best protect against consensus or e...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

For anyone who's interested in EVM, I added some extra explanation in Huff docs Simple Storage tutorial for newcomers

Hello everyone, I've been trying to understand the EVM by studying Huff language, and had some troubles understanding the tutorial on Simple Storage. So I added some more explanations for anyone who wants to follow the tutorial, but can't rea...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

Question: is there an ethereum messaging system, that actually works?

As the title says: i was questioning, if I could send a message to another eth address - without somehow "paying" for it. Or even IF I need to pay for the message.. I heard of whisper but cant find any usable app"dapp. submitted...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...

More / Etherum Reddit - 1 month ago

When using the ᴇɪᴘ‑197 precompile, is there a risk of forgery when allowing the degeneracy of bilinear pairings when using Groth16 with public inputs ? If not, how to rework the Groth16 protocol in order to let verifier ditching a pairing e(C,vk) when cal

The non degeneracy criteria is there’s no bilinear pairing resulting in the finite field element 1 equivalent. In the case of the optimal ate pairing, this can happen if one of the point of the pairing is the point at infinity : then whatever is the...