Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Blind user constraints on-chain via storing a hash #244

Closed
jakehemmerle opened this issue Nov 18, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Blind user constraints on-chain via storing a hash #244

jakehemmerle opened this issue Nov 18, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@jakehemmerle
Copy link
Contributor

jakehemmerle commented Nov 18, 2022

@fjarri suggested we store the hash of the user's constraints on-chain instead of the plaintext constraints for privacy purposes.

There are two main ways this would go:

  • User's store their constraints: If the user doesn't backup the constraints, they need to get their constraint key out again and set new constraints from scratch. Constraints are still revealed to validators in signing party.
  • Server stores the user's constraints asymmetrically encrypted - prevents the user from having to reset their constraints if they lose the preimage. Constraints are still revealed to validators in signing party.

We could still somewhat blind the active constraints by updating the on-chain hash every time we do a signing request and using a nonce in the constraint's preimage, but this requires the constraint key every time we want to send a tx.

While this would be a good way of keeping the constraints being visible on-chain, there seem to be a ton of unresolved issues in practice.

@jakehemmerle
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fjarri if you have any ideas, comments, or i missed something, please let me know

@jakehemmerle jakehemmerle mentioned this issue Nov 18, 2022
15 tasks
@ameba23
Copy link
Contributor

ameba23 commented Sep 19, 2023

@jakehemmerle is this issue still relevant, given the new programs model? Trying to see what cards on the backlog are still unresolved.

@jakehemmerle
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ameba23 Yes, this is still relevant with the new model

@HCastano
Copy link
Collaborator

HCastano commented Sep 9, 2024

Closing since we have no plans to address this soon. If this comes up again we can re-open the issue.

@HCastano HCastano closed this as completed Sep 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants