Gas-efficiency improvements

[Arachnid]

We use this in ENS for verification of P256 signatures on DNSSEC records, and the gas cost of verifying a signature is a significant barrier.

We're interested in offering a bounty for work on improving the gas efficiency of the library. Would this be of interest? If not, do you know anyone else who might have the necessary skill to take such work on?

[tdrerup]

Hi there,

I have been worried about the cost as well. Unfortunately, I myself do not have the time to work on this right now, nor do I know anyone who might.

One solution to this problem that I thought about was the following: Instead of actively verifying a signature, just publish it on chain alongside a temporary deposit. Add logic that allows anyone to kick off the signature verification on chain. If a signature is found to be invalid / does not pass verification, the deposit goes to whoever called the verification function.

If the deposit exceeds the costs of verification, the equilibrium should be that only valid signatures get posted since all invalid ones will be successfully challenged / invalidated. Once some time has passed without a valid challenge to the signature, the deposit gets refunded to whoever posted the signature. I suspect that the on-chain costs of this scheme should be substantially smaller than actively verifying signatures.

[Arachnid]

That kind of challenge system will be viable for some applications; however, it adds a significant amount of complexity, and I don't think it's viable in our case.