encrypted_note_emission
Standalone Functions
compute_payload
compute_payload(context, note, ovsk_app, ovpk, recipient, sender, );
/ Computes private note log payload
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | PrivateContext |
note | Note |
ovsk_app | Field |
ovpk | OvpkM |
recipient | AztecAddress |
sender | AztecAddress |
compute_payload_unconstrained
compute_payload_unconstrained(context, note, ovpk, recipient, sender, );
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | PrivateContext |
note | Note |
ovpk | OvpkM |
recipient | AztecAddress |
sender | AztecAddress |
encode_and_encrypt_note
encode_and_encrypt_note(context, ovpk, recipient, // TODO, we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address?
sender, );
If you get weird behavior it might be because of it.
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | &mut PrivateContext |
ovpk | OvpkM |
recipient | AztecAddress |
// TODO | We need this because to compute a tagging secret |
we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address? | |
sender | AztecAddress |
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained
encode_and_encrypt_note_unconstrained(context, ovpk, recipient, // TODO, we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address?
sender, );
Parameters
Name | Type |
---|---|
context | &mut PrivateContext |
ovpk | OvpkM |
recipient | AztecAddress |
// TODO | We need this because to compute a tagging secret |
we require a sender. Should we have the tagging secret oracle take a ovpk_m as input instead of the address? | |
sender | AztecAddress |