[curves] The great debate over point formats (Mike Hamburg)

Paulo S. L. M. Barreto pbarreto at larc.usp.br
Sun Feb 2 04:22:48 PST 2014

I don't follow you reasoning. My post had nothing to do with, nor did it even
mention, the Weierstrass form at all. It was a description of a curve in
Edwards form (with a particularly simple coefficient, and defined over one of
the NIST primes). I can't see why you thought it implied Weierstrass and an
ensuing list of disadvantages. Your criticism seems thus misplaced; maybe it
refers to some other message in the thread (or a different thread)?


On Sat, February 1, 2014 22:38, Watson Ladd wrote:
> I don't know that isogeny to a short Weierstrass curve actually solves
> anything, unless we transmit the points in that manner.
> But then a lot of the security gains vanish: we need to validate
> points, formulas get slow, etc.
> Sincerely,
> Watson
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Paulo S. L. M. Barreto
> <pbarreto at larc.usp.br> wrote:
>> How about x^2 + y^2 = 1 + 3435*x^2*y^2 (or an isogenous curve, (-1)-twist,
>> etc) over the NIST prime p_384 := 2^384 - 2^128 - 2^96 + 2^32 - 1?
>> Cheers,
>> Paulo.

> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
> Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin

More information about the Curves mailing list