Remove statement fields from Merkle proofs #129
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All for removing the "statements" from the proof.
I'm also OK with explicitly stating the order of hashes but from @musalbas comment on discord he actually prefers to start from the root.
Maybe break out the uncontroversial changes (removing the statements) to get them merged quicker?
|
Since the NebulousLabs library starts from the leaf, I'm ok with starting from the leaf and being consistent there for all Merkle tees. |
| | --------------- | -------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | ||
| | `siblingValues` | [HashDigest](#hashdigest)`[]` | Sibling hash values, ordered starting from the leaf's neighbor. | | ||
| | `siblingMins` | [NamespaceID](#type-aliases)`[]` | Sibling min namespace IDs. | | ||
| | `siblingMaxes` | [NamespaceID](#type-aliases)`[]` | Sibling max namespace IDs. | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NamespaceMerkleTreeInclusionProof is the inclusion proof for a single node right? Isn't siblingMins and Maxes implicitly included in siblingValues?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it's only for the inclusion of a single leaf. The min and max sibling values are committed to in the hashes, but they're not known to a verifier. So they still need to be provided.
Fixes #67. Does not address #48.
Removes "statement" (i.e. what you're trying to prove) fields from Merkle proof structs. Also clarify ordering of hashes. Leaf-to-root order was chosen to conform to https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6962#section-2.1.1.
Thanks to @fubuloubu for the discussion that led to this clarification (https://twitter.com/jadler0/status/1362432558382936067).