Tobias Looker

Also as raised by @christianpaquin `cv_for_hash` includes the disclosed index and it isn't stipulated whether the indicies starts from 0 or 1.

Hey @alessandroguggino good catch, yes there are some inconsistencies, however you are right that our focus as a WG is primarily on the core draft right now. Feel free to...

To be clear this proposal would yield a couple of use-ability benefits 1. The commitment required by the issuer of the BBS signature to construct a bound variant is just...

Together with this in place if agreed I think would allow us to remove the more general blind sign API from the core draft if we fail to find substantive...

After thinking about this more I propose that any formal support for a BBS signature that features a cryptographic binding to the holder / prover be left to an extension...

Thanks @christianpaquin this is awesome context both the usecase and the example of the model you took to accomodate it in U-Prove. If we simply removed sections 3.7-3.11 I believe...

Partially addressed in #108

Thanks Brent I think we need to be careful to seperate where there are true deviations from academic literature VS ones where the literature was just not aiming to define...

For example #62 from @mikelodder7 should be included.

cc @colinyip who observed and documented this issue.