Overhaul README.md #703

pull real-or-random wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin-core:master from real-or-random:readme-disclaimer changing 1 files +13 −8

real-or-random commented at 6:46 PM on December 20, 2019: contributor
- Update feature list
- Be more positive about the state and quality of the library
- Mention ECDSA key operations explicitly in short library description
- Say "secret key" instead of "private key"
cc @gmaxwell who suggested a similar wording for the disclaimer.

in README.md:6 in 6697653c86 outdated

   2 | @@ -3,17 +3,20 @@ libsecp256k1
   3 |  
   4 |  [![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin-core/secp256k1.svg?branch=master)](https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin-core/secp256k1)
   5 |  
   6 | -Optimized C library for EC operations on curve secp256k1.
   7 | +Optimized C library for ECDSA signatures and secret/public key operations on curve secp256k1.

real-or-random commented at 6:47 PM on December 20, 2019:

If we do this change, we should also change the "GitHub description"

in README.md:19 in 6697653c86 outdated
```
  20 | +* Constant time, constant memory access signing and public key generation.
  21 | +* Derandomized ECDSA (via RFC6979 or with a caller provided function.)
  22 |  * Very efficient implementation.
  23 | +* Suitable for embedded systems.
  24 | +* Optional module for public key recovery.
  25 | +* Optional module for ECDH key exchange (experimental).
```
real-or-random commented at 6:47 PM on December 20, 2019:

not sure if we really should mention experimental features

jonasnick commented at 8:52 PM on December 20, 2019:

I think experimental modules can be mentioned, but only if we define what experimental means. We don't define that anywhere afaik so it would be good to do that in any case. I'm thinking of something like "don't use this in production, unless you know what you're doing", "the module may promise properties that don't actually hold (like constant timeness in ECDH), but we'd appreciate if you help test and review it".

real-or-random commented at 12:08 PM on December 28, 2019:

"Experimental features have not received enough scrutiny to satisfy the standard of quality of this library but are made available for testing and review by the community. The APIs of these features should not be considered stable."

Ok?

jonasnick commented at 1:54 PM on December 28, 2019:

sgtm
real-or-random force-pushed on Dec 28, 2019

Overhaul README.md

  * Update feature list
  * Be more positive about the state and quality of the library
  * Mention ECDSA key operations explicitly in short library description
  * Say "secret key" instead of "private key
  * Define "experimental"

Co-Authored-By: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>

2e759ec753

real-or-random force-pushed on Dec 28, 2019
jonasnick approved
jonasnick commented at 2:01 PM on December 28, 2019: contributor

ACK 2e759ec753446aab0272ba32c5f1b7dc3a4dc75c
sipa commented at 3:00 PM on December 29, 2019: contributor

ACK 2e759ec753446aab0272ba32c5f1b7dc3a4dc75c
sipa referenced this in commit f45d897101 on Dec 29, 2019
sipa merged this on Dec 29, 2019
sipa closed this on Dec 29, 2019
fanquake referenced this in commit 8c97780db8 on Jun 13, 2020
sidhujag referenced this in commit 8a3a072968 on Jun 13, 2020
ComputerCraftr referenced this in commit b98f1c6e6c on Jun 16, 2020
UdjinM6 referenced this in commit 9d36ba6570 on Aug 10, 2021
5tefan referenced this in commit 8ded2caa74 on Aug 12, 2021
gades referenced this in commit d855cc511d on May 8, 2022
hebasto commented at 2:05 PM on February 20, 2026: member
Say "secret key" instead of "private key"
While I was porting this change to the Guix libsecp256k1 package description, the maintainer raised this comment:

public/private are common terms, secret key not sure about.

Could @real-or-random or someone else provide a bit more detail to help justify the wording change?
real-or-random commented at 3:32 PM on February 20, 2026: contributor

public/private are common terms, secret key not sure about.

Could @real-or-random or someone else provide a bit more detail to help justify the wording change?

There's no deep reason. It's about consistency. We need to pick one, and "secret" is a reasonable choice. I believe "secret" is much more common in the cryptographic literature. If anything, it matches the common abbreviation "sk".

edit: And the "High-performance, high-assurance" thing is just our aspiration. If they want more neutral language, I wouldn't try to argue with them...

Contributors