Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
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: On Wednesday, 14 January 2015, at 3:53 pm, Eric Lombrozo wrote: Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers. I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken? OP_CHECKSIG (and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY) takes a DER-encoded pubkey and a DER-encoded signature on the stack. Possibly you're confused with OP_HASH160 hash160 OP_EQUALVERIFY as used in outputs, which compares the 160-bit hash of the pubkey against the given hash (usually taken from a bitcoin address). It doesn't help understanding to consider either as integers. They are binary blob objects with either a fixed format (DER) or a fixed size (hashes). Wladimir -- BlockTrail B.V. Barbara Strozzilaan 201 1083HN Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0)612227277 E-mail: ru...@blocktrail.com Web: www.blocktrail.com Github: www.github.com/rubensayshi BlockTrail B.V. Is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam with registration No.:60262060 and VAT No.:NL853833035B01 -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
-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 think of anticipating only compressed keys for scripts? It's possible to cause confusion if one put forward a compressed key at some time, and an uncompressed key at another. A different script hash would be produced even though there is no difference to the keys involved. The client will not search for this. Having spoken with Jean-Pierre and Ruben about this for quite some time now, there is 100% the need for a BIP outlining this. Everyone has had the idea at some point, and some of us already using it, but people shouldn't have to go digging in BIP45 for the two lines which mention it. All we need is a place to put the docs. I am building up a list of implementations which currently support sorting, and briefly describing a motivation for such a BIP. On 16/01/15 10:16, Ruben de Vries wrote: 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 mailto:laa...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name mailto:b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote: On Wednesday, 14 January 2015, at 3:53 pm, Eric Lombrozo wrote: Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers. I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken? OP_CHECKSIG (and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY) takes a DER-encoded pubkey and a DER-encoded signature on the stack. Possibly you're confused with OP_HASH160 hash160 OP_EQUALVERIFY as used in outputs, which compares the 160-bit hash of the pubkey against the given hash (usually taken from a bitcoin address). It doesn't help understanding to consider either as integers. They are binary blob objects with either a fixed format (DER) or a fixed size (hashes). Wladimir -- BlockTrail B.V. Barbara Strozzilaan 201 1083HN Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone:+31 (0)612227277 E-mail:ru...@blocktrail.com mailto:ru...@blocktrail.com Web:www.blocktrail.com http://www.blocktrail.com/ Github:www.github.com/rubensayshi http://www.github.com/rubensayshi BlockTrail B.V. Is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam with registration No.:60262060 and VAT No.:NL853833035B01 -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development - -- Thomas Kerin - - My PGP key can be found here http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x3F0D2F83A2966155 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUuT2EXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2MzI1MzM4QjJGOTU5OEUzREMzQzc0MzAz RjBEMkY4M0EyOTY2MTU1AAoJED8NL4OilmFV4GgP/Rr955cDBA34e58lLdjXkqzi EYDH5QfsTdUQQVUvkK0OBq7RQwkbb7Kn5u6U8UD3hEhaWwQGhrQ/gOJrqM68glma YfYupugMesTTu4Fxm/AtNv4Cifr29EZB1gu9hBeZGT4FL863+0ShvWHdHvscOcmg 3SGv0De+1bd93j7p+9jyWh/sYpHEdi0lQBMkkCzSzhXPZzoHEglUmVYBRcmrjaag ycHuQfN5zjM0fJ18R6f7PCOOAhDi9+7xpikDArvHmKb4BZjOuMBTprN2Mzdg98Uz Rw4LRsLuht5VCnWHvC8+TUUEMUO8QOMrRxLYJSDVGcl0XYXT0EiRfnkqCr5ab8mm KqLcxpSLxrDGd4OiHwWB7oDsg9tWXwVmyQgFsTLsxaNkL8AFRG59mAhbK9j+0+1E Bd/pMx0VgGXpn1Urism5YlrR4FZ5USbYn9O0NxhUkQb550qvRtaAQNUVSJPEW0AG /2pQdFOOqkI1wI0g2L/ZcC+fwBqUok+5MyMTb4NuuvaMDpR7vOeeobIpYLjL0VVZ dNzfnlCQxGw/7QrFIbvnye8fNIMZZ9qtJx00bvXYizRyUhrF/FrRgwj2DhEjz6xM 3+CHKXNmb0qGg6jKgHvXQFic2DVo3IaNmZtVDBqyqCBKmC/A65rRws5uxIimUsIC k4af62ZBGpSAhJ4ajCIY =Ni9V -END PGP SIGNATURE- 0xA2966155.asc Description: application/pgp-keys 0xA2966155.asc.sig Description: PGP signature -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
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 looking for all combinations of compressed uncompressed. On 01/16/2015 11:34 AM, Thomas Kerin wrote: It seems there is scope for further narrowing down how a multisig scripthash address should be determined - what do people think of anticipating only compressed keys for scripts? It's possible to cause confusion if one put forward a compressed key at some time, and an uncompressed key at another. A different script hash would be produced even though there is no difference to the keys involved. The client will not search for this. Having spoken with Jean-Pierre and Ruben about this for quite some time now, there is 100% the need for a BIP outlining this. Everyone has had the idea at some point, and some of us already using it, but people shouldn't have to go digging in BIP45 for the two lines which mention it. All we need is a place to put the docs. I am building up a list of implementations which currently support sorting, and briefly describing a motivation for such a BIP. On 16/01/15 10:16, Ruben de Vries wrote: 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 mailto:laa...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name mailto:b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote: On Wednesday, 14 January 2015, at 3:53 pm, Eric Lombrozo wrote: Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers. I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken? OP_CHECKSIG (and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY) takes a DER-encoded pubkey and a DER-encoded signature on the stack. Possibly you're confused with OP_HASH160 hash160 OP_EQUALVERIFY as used in outputs, which compares the 160-bit hash of the pubkey against the given hash (usually taken from a bitcoin address). It doesn't help understanding to consider either as integers. They are binary blob objects with either a fixed format (DER) or a fixed size (hashes). Wladimir -- BlockTrail B.V. Barbara Strozzilaan 201 1083HN Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone:+31 (0)612227277 E-mail:ru...@blocktrail.com mailto:ru...@blocktrail.com Web:www.blocktrail.com http://www.blocktrail.com/ Github:www.github.com/rubensayshi http://www.github.com/rubensayshi BlockTrail B.V. Is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam with registration No.:60262060 and VAT No.:NL853833035B01 -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
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 uncompressed key, they are declaring that the key that they use and it will only be used uncompressed. Clients don't have to go looking for all combinations of compressed uncompressed. On 01/16/2015 11:34 AM, Thomas Kerin wrote: It seems there is scope for further narrowing down how a multisig scripthash address should be determined - what do people think of anticipating only compressed keys for scripts? It's possible to cause confusion if one put forward a compressed key at some time, and an uncompressed key at another. A different script hash would be produced even though there is no difference to the keys involved. The client will not search for this. Having spoken with Jean-Pierre and Ruben about this for quite some time now, there is 100% the need for a BIP outlining this. Everyone has had the idea at some point, and some of us already using it, but people shouldn't have to go digging in BIP45 for the two lines which mention it. All we need is a place to put the docs. I am building up a list of implementations which currently support sorting, and briefly describing a motivation for such a BIP. On 16/01/15 10:16, Ruben de Vries wrote: 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 mailto:laa...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Matt Whitlock b...@mattwhitlock.name mailto:b...@mattwhitlock.name wrote: On Wednesday, 14 January 2015, at 3:53 pm, Eric Lombrozo wrote: Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers. I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken? OP_CHECKSIG (and OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY) takes a DER-encoded pubkey and a DER-encoded signature on the stack. Possibly you're confused with OP_HASH160 hash160 OP_EQUALVERIFY as used in outputs, which compares the 160-bit hash of the pubkey against the given hash (usually taken from a bitcoin address). It doesn't help understanding to consider either as integers. They are binary blob objects with either a fixed format (DER) or a fixed size (hashes). Wladimir -- BlockTrail B.V. Barbara Strozzilaan 201 1083HN Amsterdam The Netherlands Phone:+31 (0)612227277 E-mail:ru...@blocktrail.com mailto:ru...@blocktrail.com Web:www.blocktrail.com http://www.blocktrail.com/ Github:www.github.com/rubensayshi http://www.github.com/rubensayshi BlockTrail B.V. Is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam with registration No.:60262060 and VAT No.:NL853833035B01 -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
In BIP45 it mentions lexicographically sorting the public keys. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0045.mediawiki#Address_Generation_Procedure On 15 January 2015 at 03:32, Jeff Garzik jgar...@bitpay.com wrote: Sounds like this warrants a micro-BIP just to get everybody on the same page. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ruben de Vries ru...@blocktrail.com wrote: For p2sh multisig TXs the order of the public keys affect the hash and there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon way of sorting the public keys. If there would be a standard (recommended) way of sorting the public keys that would make it easier for services that implement some form of multisig to be compatible with each other without much hassle and making it possible to import keys from one service to another. I'm not suggesting forcing the order, just setting a standard to recommend, there doesn't seem to be much reason for (new) services to not follow that recommendation. Ryan from BitPay broad this up before ( https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32092958/) and in bitcore they've implemented lexicographical sorting on the hex of the public key. In a short search I can't find any other library that has a sorting function, let alone using it by default, so bitcore is currently my only reference. Ruben de Vries CTO, BlockTrail -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
A public key is a point in the elliptic curve. As such it has an X and a Y component. Its serialization is described very succintly here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#Signatures On 15/01/15 01:17, Matt Whitlock wrote: I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken? -- Be Happy :) -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
Sounds like this warrants a micro-BIP just to get everybody on the same page. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Ruben de Vries ru...@blocktrail.com wrote: For p2sh multisig TXs the order of the public keys affect the hash and there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon way of sorting the public keys. If there would be a standard (recommended) way of sorting the public keys that would make it easier for services that implement some form of multisig to be compatible with each other without much hassle and making it possible to import keys from one service to another. I'm not suggesting forcing the order, just setting a standard to recommend, there doesn't seem to be much reason for (new) services to not follow that recommendation. Ryan from BitPay broad this up before ( https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32092958/) and in bitcore they've implemented lexicographical sorting on the hex of the public key. In a short search I can't find any other library that has a sorting function, let alone using it by default, so bitcore is currently my only reference. Ruben de Vries CTO, BlockTrail -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/ -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
On 14/01/15 20:27, Jeffrey Paul wrote: To clarify: the raw bytes of the public key itself, not the ascii base58 representation of the pubkey hash - right? Could you give an example of two pubkeys where the following condition is met? raw(pubkey1) raw(pubkey2) and base58(pubkey1) base58(pubkey2) -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol Rusnak st...@gk2.sk -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
We in Haskoin do the same. On 14/01/15 17:39, devrandom wrote: At CryptoCorp we recommend to our customers that they sort lexicographically by the public key bytes of the leaf public keys. i.e. the same as BitPay. -- Be Happy :) -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
On 20150114, at 09:39, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote: At CryptoCorp we recommend to our customers that they sort lexicographically by the public key bytes of the leaf public keys. i.e. the same as BitPay. To clarify: the raw bytes of the public key itself, not the ascii base58 representation of the pubkey hash - right? -jp -- Jeffrey Paul EEQJ j...@eeqj.com https://eeqj.com +1-800-403-1126 (America) +1-312-361-0355 (Worldwide) 5539 AD00 DE4C 42F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2 -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
I would highly recommend NOT using Base58 for anything except stuff that is to be copy/pasted by the enduser. Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers. - Eric On Jan 14, 2015 2:54 PM, Jeffrey Paul j...@eeqj.com wrote: On 20150114, at 09:39, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote: At CryptoCorp we recommend to our customers that they sort lexicographically by the public key bytes of the leaf public keys. i.e. the same as BitPay. To clarify: the raw bytes of the public key itself, not the ascii base58 representation of the pubkey hash - right? -jp -- Jeffrey Paul EEQJ j...@eeqj.com https://eeqj.com +1-800-403-1126 (America) +1-312-361-0355 (Worldwide) 5539 AD00 DE4C 42F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2 -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
On Wednesday, 14 January 2015, at 3:53 pm, Eric Lombrozo wrote: Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers. I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken? -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
At CryptoCorp we recommend to our customers that they sort lexicographically by the public key bytes of the leaf public keys. i.e. the same as BitPay. On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 17:37 +0100, Ruben de Vries wrote: For p2sh multisig TXs the order of the public keys affect the hash and there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon way of sorting the public keys. If there would be a standard (recommended) way of sorting the public keys that would make it easier for services that implement some form of multisig to be compatible with each other without much hassle and making it possible to import keys from one service to another. I'm not suggesting forcing the order, just setting a standard to recommend, there doesn't seem to be much reason for (new) services to not follow that recommendation. Ryan from BitPay broad this up before (https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32092958/) and in bitcore they've implemented lexicographical sorting on the hex of the public key. In a short search I can't find any other library that has a sorting function, let alone using it by default, so bitcore is currently my only reference. Ruben de Vries CTO, BlockTrail -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Miron / devrandom -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public keys for p2sh multisig transactions
I think everyone is pretty much following this standard now. - Eric On Jan 14, 2015 12:58 PM, devrandom c1.sf-bitc...@niftybox.net wrote: At CryptoCorp we recommend to our customers that they sort lexicographically by the public key bytes of the leaf public keys. i.e. the same as BitPay. On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 17:37 +0100, Ruben de Vries wrote: For p2sh multisig TXs the order of the public keys affect the hash and there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon way of sorting the public keys. If there would be a standard (recommended) way of sorting the public keys that would make it easier for services that implement some form of multisig to be compatible with each other without much hassle and making it possible to import keys from one service to another. I'm not suggesting forcing the order, just setting a standard to recommend, there doesn't seem to be much reason for (new) services to not follow that recommendation. Ryan from BitPay broad this up before (https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32092958/) and in bitcore they've implemented lexicographical sorting on the hex of the public key. In a short search I can't find any other library that has a sorting function, let alone using it by default, so bitcore is currently my only reference. Ruben de Vries CTO, BlockTrail -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Miron / devrandom -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet ___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA. GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn. Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth. Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant. http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet___ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
