| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | 
|---|
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | not for OK (as zero implies NO) | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | just adding the function signatures) | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | always point to the 70s, so new signkeys were always generated | 
|  |  | 
|  | Before, we only would create new denomination keys when
the spending period is over. | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  | We now send the secret_seed to the skm variable, while sending the
counter salt to the xts variable.  I have not check this with
http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/264 but it seems correct.
Indeed rsa_blinding_key_derive places the strong source of
randomness in skm too, and uses a constant string for xts. | 
|  | Reversed order buisness agrees with KC's experence from gnunet-rs | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  | 
|  |  |