Thanks,
I just couldn't find where is the message sequence number comes from.
So if it's max 1GB and it's an incremental counter that cannot be reseted
without a rekeying than it's perfectly fine :).
Thanks for the answer!
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:20 PM Jonas Schnelli
wrote:
> Hi Elichai
>
>
Hi Elichai
> About the nonce being 64bit. (rfc7539 changed it to 96bit, which djb later
> calls xchacha)
>
> You suggest that we use the "message sequence number" as the nonce for
> Chacha20, Is this number randomly generate or is this a counter?
> And could it be reseted without rekeying?
The
Indeed a large testnet blockchain has advantages too.
But because it is the testnet and the testnet coins have no value, the
blockchain could be 'spammed' after a reset for some days/weeks until it
has a certain size.
Could this be realistic solution ?
Am 16.06.19 um 22:25 schrieb Peter Todd:
> On
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I don't get why the testnet shouldn't be resetted just because there is a
> (probably better) alternative for it. The testnet is still a thing and is
> also used.
Remember that the size of testnet itself is an important
Hi everyone,
About the nonce being 64bit. (rfc7539 changed it to 96bit, which djb later
calls xchacha)
You suggest that we use the "message sequence number" as the nonce for
Chacha20, Is this number randomly generate or is this a counter?
And could it be reseted without rekeying?
If it is randoml
