Add example for BLS signature #1153
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Preview is available here: |
dmkozh
reviewed
Dec 21, 2024
|
|
||
| ### BLS Signature verification | ||
|
|
||
| ``` |
|
|
||
| Most of what's here is needed in order to create the contract client and ensure the invocation of its custom account interface for signature authorization. After the setup, calling `env.try_invoke_contract_check_auth` on the client will invoke the `__check_auth` logic we've defined in our contract. | ||
|
|
||
| The invocation will return nothing on success, and will panic on failure. The other thing we are interested here is budget consumption for this call. At the beginning setting `env.budget().reset_unlimited()` ensure all the prep work (which emulates the off-chain work needed to be performed by e.g. a smart wallet) will not run out of budget. This isn't strictly necessary since the default budget should be large enough. `env.budget().reset_default()` right before the invocation makes sure the budget is reset to default state (also resetting metering counters) so that we can get an accurate capture of the budget for the invocation alone. `env.budget().print()` at the end prints out the budget. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since SDK 22.0.4 we shouldn't need to do budget resets anymore. We should update the example first, but I think for the doc we can just omit this, so that there is less to change when the example is updated.
| Running this test will produce the following budget output, the total cpu consumption for signature verification is around 31M. And you can add as many additional public keys as you like. In general `pairing_check` is a function with linear cost, so the more unique messages that needs to be signed, the higher cost. Here because all signers sign the same content (hash of the call stack of this contract), we can do this in constant time. | ||
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| ---- test::test stdout ---- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make sense to omit all the cost type rows here and just leave the non-zero BLS rows?
|
Preview is available here: |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Corresponding example source code: https://github.com/stellar/soroban-examples/tree/v22.0.1/bls_signature