Timeline for Can a tree hash with leaf-size of 1 byte support verification of content with elided ranges, at a cost of at most 2 supplied internal-node hashes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://crypto.stackexchange.com/ with https://crypto.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Sep 1, 2015 at 8:26 | history | edited | otus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1196 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2015 at 23:27 | comment | added | gojomo | It was helpful on the headline question (hence the upvote) but I'd still welcome answers on the full set of related questions/concerns in the text, so not ready to mark as concluded. | |
| Aug 7, 2015 at 8:59 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | @gojomo Did this answer the question or not? I cannot tell from your comment and you haven't accepted the answer. | |
| Aug 5, 2015 at 23:23 | comment | added | gojomo | Thanks, I now see that's the case with a balanced tree. (I have a vague hunch there might be some other construct that could achieve the "only two" quality, but haven't yet worked one out.) Since posting the question, I've learned prior work often uses the terms 'redactable signature' for such schemes, and thus discovered some improvements on the basic idea there (especially for the case where the redacted material might be from a small-enough set to discover by brute-force iteration against post-redaction hashes). | |
| Aug 5, 2015 at 6:56 | history | answered | otus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |