delvingbitcoin

FE'd Up Covenants

FE'd Up Covenants

Original Postby AdamISZ

Posted on: May 31, 2024 15:33 UTC

In the correspondence, a potential typo was identified concerning the encryption process described.

Specifically, there is confusion over the use of the variable $m$ in the phrase "Next, encrypt $m$", where it's suggested that perhaps $m$ should be replaced with $p$. Furthermore, the equation provided, $UniqueSecKey(p, TX) = Add(m, CTVHash(TX))$, is also questioned for the same reason, proposing that $m$ might erroneously be used in place of $p$. This points to a need for clarification or correction in the use of variables within the encryption context mentioned.

Bitcoin Logo

TLDR

Join Our Newsletter

We’ll email you summaries of the latest discussions from authoritative bitcoin sources, like bitcoin-dev, lightning-dev, and Delving Bitcoin.

Explore all Products

ChatBTC imageBitcoin searchBitcoin TranscriptsSaving SatoshiBitcoin Transcripts Review
Built with 🧡 by the Bitcoin Dev Project
View our public visitor count

We'd love to hear your feedback on this project?

Give Feedback