There is little reason for having the number of bits in the scalar as a parameter, as I don't think there are any (current) use cases for non-256-bit scalars.
Remove bits argument from secp256k1_wnaf_const{_xonly} #1265
pull sipa wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin-core:master from sipa:202304_noecmultconstbits changing 6 files +43 −63-
sipa commented at 10:57 AM on April 10, 2023: contributor
-
Remove bits argument from secp256k1_wnaf_const (always 256) a575339c02
-
real-or-random commented at 11:14 AM on April 10, 2023: contributor
Concept ACK
I don't think there are any (current) use cases for non-256-bit scalars.
Indeed, it seems unlikely that we'll ever have non-256-bit private scalars.
- jonasnick approved
-
jonasnick commented at 8:34 AM on April 18, 2023: contributor
ACK a575339c0282ba49a4f46c9c660a4cc3b6bfc703
- real-or-random approved
-
real-or-random commented at 10:15 AM on April 18, 2023: contributor
utACK a575339c0282ba49a4f46c9c660a4cc3b6bfc703
- real-or-random merged this on Apr 18, 2023
- real-or-random closed this on Apr 18, 2023
- sipa referenced this in commit b4eb644b6c on May 12, 2023
- hebasto referenced this in commit 49c52ea2b1 on May 13, 2023
- vmta referenced this in commit e1120c94a1 on Jun 4, 2023
- sipa referenced this in commit 901336eee7 on Jun 21, 2023
- vmta referenced this in commit 8f03457eed on Jul 1, 2023
- jonasnick cross-referenced this on Jul 24, 2023 from issue Upstream PRs 1268, 1276, 1267, 1265, 1230, 1279, 1273, 1263, 1231, 1285, 1283, 1205, 1286, 1275, 1234, 1239, 1240, 1284, 1277, 1289, 1270, 1296, 1301, 1299, 1066, 1300, 1292, 1305, 1303, 1133, 1306, 1207, 1304, 1307, 1311, 1309, 1312 by jonasnick
Contributors