Move commitment verification into verifier #1051
Conversation
Signed-off-by: litt3 <[email protected]>
| @@ -329,3 +329,45 @@ func PairingsVerify(a1 *bn254.G1Affine, a2 *bn254.G2Affine, b1 *bn254.G1Affine, | |||
|
|
|||
| return nil | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // GenerateBlobCommitment computes a kzg-bn254 commitment of blob data using SRS | |||
| func (v *Verifier) GenerateBlobCommitment(blob []byte) (*encoding.G1Commitment, error) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this need to be public?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have any particular external use cases in mind. My tendency would be to keep it public, since it's a general purpose method to compute commitment from bytes, with likelihood of being used elsewhere in the future. But I'd have no strong objection to making it private
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can rework the API later but I find it a bit weird that this method is on a strict called Verifier. I might want to compute a kzg commitment without verifying anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see your point. We could create a new type Committer, which would accept a kzg configuration, and just produce the commitments.
|
|
||
| // GenerateAndCompareBlobCommitment generates the kzg-bn254 commitment of the blob, and compares it with a claimed | ||
| // commitment. An error is returned if there is a problem generating the commitment, or if the comparison fails. | ||
| func (v *Verifier) GenerateAndCompareBlobCommitment(claimedCommitment *encoding.G1Commitment, blobBytes []byte) error { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this need to be public?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this will be called by the v2 client
|
Closing this PR, to move the methods to better places. See #1051 (comment) |
This PR moves the newly implemented commitment verification into the verifier, as suggested here