Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions

2015-01-16 Thread Ruben de Vries
Since we only need the sorting for creating the scriptPubKey, wouldn't it make the most sense to sort it by the way it represented in that context? On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Wladimir laa...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote:

Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions

2015-01-16 Thread Thomas Kerin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 It would - it assumes you have the set of keys and are sorting before you derive and send funds to such a P2SH address. It seems there is scope for further narrowing down how a multisig scripthash address should be determined - what do people

Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions

2015-01-16 Thread Alan Reiner
I see no reason to restrict compressed/uncompressed. Strings don't have to be the same length to sort them lexicographically. If a multi-sig participant provides an uncompressed key, they are declaring that the key that they use and it will only be used uncompressed. Clients don't have to go

Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions

2015-01-16 Thread Jean-Pierre Rupp
It is better if the scheme is strongly deterministic.On 16 Jan 2015 17:09, Alan Reiner etothe...@gmail.com wrote: I see no reason to restrict compressed/uncompressed.  Strings don't have to be the same length to sort them lexicographically.  If a multi-sig participant provides an