bls 
Boneh-Lynn-Shacham (BLS) signatures have slow signing, very slow verification, require slow and much less secure pairing friendly curves, and tend towards dangerous malleability. Yet, BLS permits a diverse array of signature aggregation options far beyond any other known signature scheme, which makes BLS a preferred scheme for voting in consensus algorithms and for threshold signatures.
In this crate, we take a largely unified approach to aggregation techniques and verifier optimisations for BLS signature: We support the BLS12-381 (Barreto-Lynn-Scott) curves via ZCash's traits, but abstract the pairing so that developers can choose their preferred orientation for BLS signatures. We provide aggregation techniques based on messages being distinct, on proofs-of-possession, and on delinearization, although we do not provide all known optimisations for delinearization.
We cannot claim these abstractions provide miss-use resistance, but they at least structure the problem, provide some guidlines, and maximize the relevance of warnings present in the documentation.
Documentation
You first bring the bls crate into your project just as you normally would.
use bls_like::{Keypair,ZBLS};
let keypair = Keypair::<ZBLS>::generate(::rand::thread_rng());
let message = Message::new(b"Some context",b"Some message");
let sig = keypair.sign(message);
assert!( sig.verify() );
In this example, sig is a SignedMessage<ZBLS> that contains the message hash, the signer's public key, and of course the signature, but one should usually detach these constituents for wire formats.
Aggregated and blind signatures are almost the only reasons anyone would consider using BLS signatures, so we focus on aggregation here. We assume for brevity that sigs is an array of SignedMessages, as one might construct like
let sigs = msgs.iter().zip(keypairs.iter_mut()).map(|(m,k)| k.sign(*m)).collect::<Vec<_>>();
As a rule, aggregation that requires distinct messages still requires one miller loop step per message, so aggregate signatures have rather slow verification times. You can nevertheless achieve quite small signature sizes like
let mut dms = sigs.iter().try_fold(
::bls::distinct::DistinctMessages::<ZBLS>::new(),
|dm,sig| dm.add(sig)
).unwrap();
dms.signature()
Anyone who receives the already aggregated signature along with a list of messages and public keys might reconstruct this like:
let mut dms = msgs.iter().zip(publickeys).try_fold(
::bls::distinct::DistinctMessages::<ZBLS>::new(),
|dm,(message,publickey)| dm.add_message_n_publickey(message,publickey)
) ?;
dms.dms.add_signature(signature);
dms.verify()
We recommend distinct message aggregation like this primarily for verifying proofs-of-possession, meaning checking the self certificates for numerous keys.
Assuming you already have proofs-of-possession, then you'll want to do aggregation with BitPoPSignedMessage or some variant tuned to your use case. We recommend more care when using BatchAssumingProofsOfPossession because it provides no mechanism for checking a proof-of-possession table.
// TODO: Use BitPoPSignedMessage
If you lack proofs-of-possesion, then delinearized approaches are provided in the delinear module, but such schemes might require a more customised approach.
Security Warnings
This library does not make any guarantees about constant-time operations, memory access patterns, or resistance to side-channel attacks.
License
Licensed under either of
- Apache License, Version 2.0, (LICENSE-APACHE or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
- MIT license (LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
at your option.
Contribution
Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be dual licensed as above, without any additional terms or conditions.
38 Nov 30, 2022
50 Dec 25, 2022