Re: [Cfrg] BLS standard draft

FWIW, I have more than once wanted a scheme with the properties of BLS. I'm
not an expert in this area, but assuming that BLS is still the state of the
art here, it seems like it would be useful to document it in CFRG.

-Ekr

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 6:57 AM Tony Arcieri <bascule@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:52 AM Michael Scott <mike.scott@miracl.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 1) Pairing-based crypto threw open the doors to lots of nice new crypto
>> possibilities, enabling stuff that we couldn't do before
>> 2) Gradually post-quantum crypto is catching up and demonstrating
>> capabilities that mirror some (but not all) of these achievements
>>
>
> I'd agree with this: it is great people are working on post-quantum
> cryptography, but I do not view the threat as particular urgent (i.e. 10+
> years away, if ever), and therefore think it makes sense to continue to
> work on pre-quantum and post-quantum schemes in parallel.
>
> Furthermore I'd like to add that pairings-based signature schemes like
> this have somewhat unique and highly useful properties around offline
> signature aggregation and small signature sizes. At least to my knowledge,
> there is no post-quantum secure equivalent of bilinear pairings (perhaps
> I'm mistaken?), so if we focus exclusively on post-quantum schemes we leave
> all of these benefits on the table, even in the event large QCs capable of
> attacking this class of elliptic curve prove to be intractable.
>
> --
> Tony Arcieri
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>