Re: [Bitcoin-development] Who is creating non-DER signatures?

2013-04-13 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Pieter Wuille pieter.wui...@gmail.com wrote: Actual network rules will need to come later. However, even just not accepting them into memory pools will it make very hard (if not impossible) for the buggy clients that create transactions to get any confirmations.

[Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Peter Todd
Currently signmessage/verifymessage only supports messages signed by a single key. We should extend that to messages signed by n-of-m keys, or from the users point of view, P2SH multisig addresses. rpc.cpp:signmessage() returns the output of SignCompact(). That in turn starts with a header byte

Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Alan Reiner
If we're going to extend/expand message signing, can we please add a proper ASCII-armored format for it? Really, anything that encodes the signed message next to the signature, so that there's no ambiguities about what was signed. You can keep the bare signatures as an option for backwards

Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Luke-Jr
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 5:09:58 AM Peter Todd wrote: Currently signmessage/verifymessage only supports messages signed by a single key. We should extend that to messages signed by n-of-m keys, or from the users point of view, P2SH multisig addresses. I think it would be wise to figure out HD