Does Enrico bear a secret in order to demonstrate his standing to adhere conditions?

[jMyles]

In a scenario where Enrico has standing to use a Strategy funded by a particular Alice, does he have a secret (eg, decrypting material to receive an authorization token, or signing material fit to participate in a derivation scheme) requiring local custody?

This perhaps turns, in full or in part, by the matter of how, in the scope of the protocol, Alice authorizes this adherence:

nucypher/nucypher#3050

[jMyles]

Notice, this is separate from the secret material that Enrico might use to, for example, create a signature in the process of actually adhering the conditions. That part is here:

#157

[derekpierre]

Is this issue resolved by use of the g_inv parameter by ferveo? (cc @piotr-roslaniec , @KPrasch )

[cygnusv]

No, the g_inv parameter is a public parameter of the elliptic curve we use (BLS12-381)

[derekpierre]

Is this resolved by the Allow List work done on the contract side, and which will be completed in nucypher via nucypher/nucypher#3213?

[cygnusv]

Closed by nucypher/nucypher-contracts#89

[jMyles]

I broadly agree that the AllowLogic design (ie, nucypher/nucypher-contracts#89) represents a disposition to this issue.

Though I do want to note: different AllowLogic schemes may present different secret custody requirements, and also cause dramatically increased value for the Enrico secret in question. I hope we stay mindful of this.