augur-lite | Skinny cousin to Augur , the decentralized prediction | Cryptography library
kandi X-RAY | augur-lite Summary
kandi X-RAY | augur-lite Summary
To explain AugurLite concepts, we will discuss each smart contract that makes up the protocol. Here is the breakdown. This is the protocol's master contract. It is responsible for logging protocol-wide events, controlling transfers of denomination tokens, and creating the genesis universe using the UniverseFactory. This contract is a fork of Augur's main contract. Conceptually, a universe is a container for markets that use the same denomination token. Each universe is created by the AugurLite contract. New markets (scalar, yesno, categorical) are created by calling this contract that in turn uses MarketFactory contracts. The Universe contract stores the denomination token that is used for all markets created in the universe. Unlike Augur's equivalent, this contract doesn't have any concept of forking, fee windows, reporting fees, open interest, or REP, because AugurLite does not come with an oracle out-of-the-box. A market is effectively a question about the future. Examples might be "Will Kamala Harris win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination?" or "What will be the price of Bitcoin (BTC) in USD at 5pm PDT on Friday, May 17, 2019?" Markets come in three types: yes/no, categorical, and scalar. AugurLite markets have an oracle field which specifies which Ethereum address can resolve the market, meaning specify how much each outcome is actually worth on expiration. All markets in Augur by default use the Augur oracle for resolution, and therefore users are required to deposit ETH and REP when creating a market. AugurLite is oracle-agnostic, so markets could be resolved by referencing the result of an Augur market or some other piece of Ethereum state. Therefore, users do not have to pay additional ETH, REP, or any other currency when creating markets. This contract shares many of the same fields as Augur's Market contract. It's worth noting that the initial reporter and reporting participants concepts have been removed because they relate to the Augur oracle, which is irrelevant here. Markets are resolved by calling one resolve method. There is no finalization process as there is on Augur. Upon market creation, a market creator mailbox is created through the MailboxFactory, and share tokens are created through the ShareTokenFactory. We'll talk more about those in their own sections below. Markets also have a market creator fee that is charged when shares are redeemed. These are mintable, burnable ERC-20 tokens that represent outcomes in markets. They are created by ShareTokenFactory. A share token should be valued between 0 and 1 of the relevant denomination token. For instance, if you own a "YES" share token in a market denominated in Dai about an event that ends up happening, that share token will be worth 1 DAI upon resolution. Similarly, the "NO" share token in that market will be worth 0 DAI. There is an equivalent ShareToken contract in Augur. A complete set is a basket of all share tokens in a market. For instance, 1 complete set in a yes/no market would be 1 "YES" share token and 1 "NO" share token. Complete sets have the property of always being worth denomination token, because regardless of the outcome of the market, the sum of the values of the share tokens will be 1. This contract lets users buy and sell complete sets in a given market. A user can buy a complete set by escrowing 1 denomination token in the market in exchange for 1 complete set. And a user can sell a complete set by exchanging the set for 1 denomination token (minus the market creator fee) that had been escrowed in the market. There is an equivalent CompleteSets contract in Augur. This contract lets users exchange their share tokens for denomination tokens once a market resolves. It is equivalent to the ClaimTradingProceeds contract in Augur. You will notice that all other trading-related contracts from Augur do not exist in AugurLite. That is because AugurLite defers trading to other off-chain exchange protocols (like 0x or Hydro) and encourages users to trade through off-chain relayers (like Veil, BlitzPredict, or Flux) for better performance. This contract is deployed per market and is owned by the market creator. It collects the market creator fees, and it's ownership can be transferred. There is an equivalent Mailbox contract in Augur. AugurLite uses the UniverseFactory contract to create universes, including the genesis universe. Universe contracts uses MarketFactory to create new markets. Upon deployment, market contracts use MailboxFactory to create mailboxes for the market creators and ShareTokenFactory to create outcome tokens (i.e. share tokens).
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of augur-lite
augur-lite Key Features
augur-lite Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on Cryptography
QUESTION
I'm trying to achieve the exact opposite of this here where I need to sign a payload in Python using ECDSA and be able to verify the signature in JS.
Here is my attempt, but I'm pretty sure I'm missing something with data transformation on either or both ends.
(Key types are the same as in the answer provided to the question above)
I've tried some other variations but nothing worked so far.
(The verification on JS returns False)
Python:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Apr-10 at 18:16The main problem is that both codes use different signature formats:
sign_payload() in the Python code generates an ECDSA signature in ASN.1/DER format. The WebCrypto API on the other hand can only handle the IEEE P1363 format.
Since the Python Cryptography library is much more convenient than the low level WebCrypto API it makes sense to do the conversion in Python code.
The following Python code is based on your code, but additionally performs the transformation into the IEEE P1363 format at the end:
QUESTION
In .NET 6 code from How can I SHA512 a string in C#?
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Nov-27 at 16:16In my case I was using RNGCryptoServiceProvider in .NET 5 but when I updated to .NET 6 I got the same warning. After reading about it in this issue I changed my code from this:
QUESTION
Based on the example provided here on how to establish a shared secret and derived key between JS (Crypto-JS) and Python, I can end up with the same shared secret and derived key on both ends.
However, when I try to encrypt as below, I cannot find a way to properly decrypt from Python. My understanding is that probably I am messing with the padding or salts and hashes.
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-28 at 11:29The issue is that the key is not passed correctly in the CryptoJS code.
The posted Python code generates LefjQ2pEXmiy/nNZvEJ43i8hJuaAnzbA1Cbn1hOuAgA= as Base64-encoded key. This must be imported in the CryptoJS code using the Base64 encoder:
QUESTION
Everytime I publish my Blazor Server-project to my website domain, and opening the website, this exception occurs, and there's little to no help Googling it:
And it says AppState.cs: line 21, so here's the codeline for it:
This exception is not happening under debugging localhost. When I delete localStorage from the browser on my website, and refreshing, then everything works. But I don't want my customers having this exception and having to tell them to delete the localstorage everytime I'm publishing.
My Program.cs if necessary:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-16 at 13:16Try to set Load User Profile to true in your IIS app pool in the advanced settings.
see this answer, I hope that will help you!
QUESTION
I'm experimenting with Chaum's blind signature, and what I'm trying to do is have the blinding and un-blinding done in JavaScript, and signing and verifying in Java (with bouncy castle). For the Java side, my source is this, and for JavaScript, I found blind-signatures. I've created two small codes to play with, for the Java side:
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Dec-13 at 14:56The blind-signature library used in the NodeJS code for blind signing implements the process described here:
BlindSignature.blind()generates the SHA256 hash of the message and determines the blind message m' = m * re mod N.BlindSignature.sign()calculates the blind signature s' = (m')d mod N.BlindSignature.unblind()determines the unblind signature s = s' * r-1 mod N.BlindSignature.verify()decrypts the unblind signature (se) and compares the result with the hashed message. If both are the same, the verification is successful.
No padding takes place in this process.
In the Java code, the implementation of signing the blind message in signConcealedMessage() is functionally identical to BlindSignature.sign().
In contrast, the verification in the Java code is incompatible with the above process because the Java code uses PSS as padding during verification.
A compatible Java code would be for instance:
QUESTION
We are trying to make a JWT token for Apple Search Ads using the KJUR jws library. We are using the API documents from Apple:
We are generating a private key (prime256v1 curve):
openssl ecparam -genkey -name prime256v1 -noout -out private-key.pem
Next we are generating a public key from the private key:
openssl ec -in private-key.pem -pubout -out public-key.pem
Next we setup the header and payload:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Mar-02 at 07:47The issue is caused by an incorrect import of the key.
The posted key is a PEM encoded private key in SEC1 format. In getKey() the key is passed in JWK format, specifying the raw private key d. The PEM encoded SEC1 key is used as the value for d. This is incorrect because the raw private key is not identical to the SEC1 key, but is merely contained within it.
To fix the problem, the key must be imported correctly. jsrsasign also supports the import of a PEM encoded key in SEC1 format, but then it also needs the EC parameters, s. e.g. here. For prime256v1 aka secp256r1 this is:
QUESTION
I trying to get the RSA signature as described in Annex A2.1 of EMV book 2. As I understand it was described in ISO9796-2 as scheme 1, option 1. So, the resulting signature should contain a Header equal to '6A' and a Trailer equal to 'BC'.
The algorithms ALG_RSA_SHA_ISO9796 and ALG_RSA_SHA_ISO9796_MR are the only suitable that I could find. But they acting like scheme 1, option 2 with a Trailer equal to '33cc'
Is it possible to get a signature with Trailer = 'BC'?
Javacard example code:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Feb-24 at 10:46You can generate such signature using Cipher.ALG_RSA_NOPAD in decrypt mode.
Pseudocode:
QUESTION
Hello I am trying to transfer a custom SPL token with the solana-wallet adapter. However i am having trouble getting the wallet's secret key/signing the transaction.
I've looked at these answers for writing the transfer code but i need to get the Singer and i have trouble figuring out how with solana-wallet adapter. These examples hardcode the secret key and since i'm using a wallet extension this is not possible.
How can you transfer SOL using the web3.js sdk for Solana?
How to transfer custom token by '@solana/web3.js'
according to this issue on the webadapter repo https://github.com/solana-labs/wallet-adapter/issues/120 you need to:
- Create a @solana/web3.js Transaction object and add instructions to it
- Sign the transaction with the wallet
- Send the transaction over a Connection
But i am having difficulty finding examples or documentation as to how to do step 1 and 2.
...ANSWER
Answered 2021-Dec-06 at 13:51So i found a way to do this, it requires some cleanup and error handling but allows for a custom token transaction via @solana/wallet-adapter.
QUESTION
I have a base64-encoded public key in DER format. In Python, how can I convert it into a COSE key?
Here is my failed attempt:
...ANSWER
Answered 2022-Jan-01 at 07:49The posted key is an EC key for curve P-256 in X.509 format.
With an ASN.1 parser (e.g. https://lapo.it/asn1js/) the x and y coordinates can be determined:
QUESTION
I'm switching from the pure Python ecdsa library to the much faster coincurve library for signing data. I would also like to switch to coincurve for verifying the signatures (including the old signatures created by the ecdsa library).
It appears that signatures created with ecdsa are not (always?) valid in coincurve. Could someone please explain why this is not working? Also, it seems that cryptography library is able to validate both ecdsa signatures and coincurve signatures without issues, consistently.
What is even more confusing, if you run below script a few times, is that sometimes it prints point 3 and other times it does not. Why would coincurve only occasionally find the signature valid?
ANSWER
Answered 2021-Dec-25 at 14:41Bitcoin and the coincurve library use canonical signatures while this is not true for the ecdsa library.
What does canonical signature mean?
In general, if (r,s) is a valid signature, then (r,s') := (r,-s mod n) is also a valid signature (n is the order of the base point).
A canonical signature uses the value s' = -s mod n = n - s instead of s, i.e. the signature (r, n-s), if s > n/2, s. e.g. here.
All signatures from the ecdsa library that were not been successfully validated by the coincurve library in your test program have an s > n/2 and thus are not canonical, whereas those that were successfully validated are canonical.
So the fix is simply to canonize the signature of the ecdsa library, e.g.:
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install augur-lite
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page
