Skip to content

[Docs] Revision to intro page#3281

Merged
quentinlesceller merged 11 commits into
mimblewimble:masterfrom
draz3nv:intro_revision
Aug 11, 2020
Merged

[Docs] Revision to intro page#3281
quentinlesceller merged 11 commits into
mimblewimble:masterfrom
draz3nv:intro_revision

Conversation

@draz3nv
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@draz3nv draz3nv commented Mar 28, 2020

Closes #3280.

Tried to focus on making the revision correct while keeping it clear, without delving into technical explanations (which can be found in the issue above).

Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
the number. We won't elaborate on the range proof, but you just need to know
that for any `r*G + v*H` we can build a proof that will show that _v_ is greater than
that for any `r*G + v*H` we can build a proof that shows that _v_ is greater than
zero and does not overflow.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought I remembered this being in the docs somewhere.
The rangeproof shows the value is >=0 and we do technically allow 0 value commitments.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I missed this subtlety. It is indeed mentioned in the intro, but somewhere else. I checked and couldn't find this mistake somewhere else.

Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
* An transaction fee in cleartext.
* A signature whose private key is computed by taking the excess value (the sum of all
* A transaction fee in cleartext.
* A signature its private key is formed by computing the excess value (the sum of all
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Still reads a little awkward.
Maybe -
"A signature with private key computed from..."

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I tried again. The thing is that signature has no private key, so "with"/"its" is inaccurate.
Perhaps having here the details about the excess value doesn't really help.

Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@antiochp antiochp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this! This I think is a solid improvement.
A couple of typos and a couple of suggestions to revert some minor changes.

Overall 👍 but I'd like another pair of eyes on this before we merge.

@tromp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

tromp commented Mar 29, 2020

"The public key r*G obtained from the summation of all inputs and outputs." would be better rephrased along the lines of

"The public key (x-o)*G obtained from the excess x between inputs and outputs blinding factors, adjusted by kernel offset o."

@draz3nv
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

draz3nv commented Mar 29, 2020

This introduction doesn't explain why we need "A single kernel offset to cover the full block".
Is one of the block validation steps to sum all public keys (r-a)*G with the kernel offset and equate it to the sum of outputs minus the sum of inputs?
If so, let's make it explicit.

@tromp
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

tromp commented Mar 29, 2020

yes, a block has a validation step

sum outputs - sum inputs = sum kernels + offset*G + 60*H

Comment thread doc/intro.md
@Aradtski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Aradtski commented Aug 1, 2020

@antiochp @tromp Can this revision be merged?

Comment thread doc/intro.md
Comment thread doc/intro.md
extremely large number). Somewhere on the blockchain, the following output appears and
should only be spendable by you:

X = 28*G + 3*H
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@tromp tromp Aug 1, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Again, need to escape markdown syntax with *

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same as above

Comment thread doc/intro.md
Comment thread doc/intro.md Outdated
@quentinlesceller quentinlesceller merged commit 110deff into mimblewimble:master Aug 11, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Intro to MW page needs corrections

5 participants