Re: [Taler] refactoring suggestion

[Fabian Kirsch]

Hi Christian,

this is thought to make the design (and the paper) easier to understand 
and analyze.

If there is a list of very technical operations which is in the end 
formally equivalent to an
procedure which has to be understood by the reader anyway..
..then we should replace that list of operations with a procedure-call.
Allowing the reader to think about it on a higher level than otherwise.

That is easier to read and understand.
Of course you can add a footnote that for kappa=1 a lot of values are 
not evaluated
and therefor their computation and transfer can be dropped in the 
implementation.

Greetings
  Fabian

Am 03.10.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Christian Grothoff:
> Hi Fabian,
>
> I'm not sure if your proposal is for the implementation or the paper.
>
> For the paper, I don't see how this really makes the paper easier to
> read (it might make it a tiny bit shorter), as now a rather complex case
> is used for something rather simple.
>
> For the implementation, your suggestion increases the overhead, but
> given that the sender never proves that he knows W_s, it's main impact
> is to reduce code size at the expense of (significantly) more bandwidth
> and computation.
>
> That said, your observation that there is some semantic equivalence is
> of course correct.
>
> Happy hacking!
>
> -Christian
>
> On 09/30/2015 10:37 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > take a look at "refresh" for the case of kappa=1.
> > A lot of variables are then only calculated but never used.
> > T, K, E may be left out.
> >
> > writing down the remaining algorithm (without unneccessary computations)
> > you end up with the equivalent of "second-half-of-withdrawel".
> >
> > I therefor suggest rewriting withdrawel as:
> > 1.) send money with Wp
> > 2.) get S_K(Wp) as named coin
> > 3.) refresh it if you like, some mints may allow kappa=1 for refreshing
> > named coins
> >
> > greetings Fabian