Profile

**R to @adam3us: i later found another incremental optimisation where you can drop one of the r values (fix r_0 to 0) and still compute and verify, reducing space for r, and n values to k*(n-1)+1 (of 256-bit = 32byte numbers) plus some public keys etc.** i later found another incremental optimisation where you can drop one of the r values (fix r_0 to 0) and still compute and verify, reducing space for r, and n values to k*(n-1)+1 (of 256-bit = 32byte numbers) plus some public keys etc.**R to @adam3us: i later found another incremental optimisation where you can drop one of the r values (fix r_0 to 0) and still compute and verify, reducing space for r, and n values to k*(n-1)+1 (of 256-bit = 32byte numbers) plus some public keys e… https://nitter.net/adam3us/status/1605998191249342475#m

**R to @adam3us: the hashring idea from AOS paper is about 50% more compact as you only need to send one c value c0, plus n r values. c_{i+1}=h(r_i*G+c_i*Q_i) where i is modulo n the number of ORs. so it looks like c_1=H(r_0+c_0*Q_i) c_2=H(r_1+c_1*Q{i+1}) ... c_0=H(r_{n-1}+c_{n-1}*Q_{n-1})** the hashring idea from AOS paper is about 50% more compact as you only need to send one c value c0, plus n r values. c_{i+1}=h(r_i*G+c_i*Q_i) where i is modulo n the number of ORs. so it looks like c_1=H(r_0+c_0*Q_i) c_2=H(r_1+c_1*Q{i+1}) ... c_0=H(r_{n-1}+c_{n-1}*Q_{n-1})**R to @adam3us: the hashring idea from AOS paper is about 50% more compact as you only need to send one c value c0, plus n r values. c_{i+1}=h(r_i*G+c_i*Q_i) where i is modulo n the number of ORs. so it looks like c_1=H(r_0+c_0*Q_i) c_2=H(r_1+c_1… https://nitter.net/adam3us/status/1605996276859826176#m