From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Douglas Roark <doug@bitcoinarmory•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:30:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhx=_DubYGZhBSMmYzeyZQd1NE_p0dLzoODY02vU0LQUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Douglas Roark <doug@bitcoinarmory•com> wrote:
> Nice paper, Pieter. I do have a bit of feedback.
Thanks for the comments. I hope I have clarified the text a bit accordingly.
> 1)The first sentence of "Deployment" has a typo. "We reuse the
> double-threshold switchover mechanism from BIP 34, with the same
> *thresholds*, [....]"
Fixed.
> 2)I think the handling of the sighash byte in the comments of
> IsDERSignature() could use a little tweaking. If you look at
> CheckSignatureEncoding() in the actual code (src/script/interpreter.cpp
> in master), it's clear that the sighash byte is included as part of the
> signature struct, even though it's not part of the actual DER encoding
> being checked by IsDERSignature(). This is fine. I just think that the
> code comments in the paper ought to make this point clearer, either in
> the sighash description, or as a comment when checking the sig size
> (i.e., size-3 is valid because sighash is included), or both.
I've renamed the function to IsValidSignatureEncoding, as it is not
strictly about DER (it adds a Bitcoin-specific byte, and supports and
empty string too).
> 3)The paper says a sig with size=0 is correctly coded but is neither
> valid nor DER. Perhaps this code should be elsewhere in the Bitcoin
> code? It seems to me that letting a sig pass in IsDERSignature() when
> it's not actually DER-encoded is incorrect.
I've expanded the comments about it a bit.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-21 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-21 0:35 Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 4:45 ` Rusty Russell
2015-01-21 16:49 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 19:10 ` Peter Todd
2015-01-21 19:29 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 20:30 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-01-21 20:39 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 20:37 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-01-21 20:52 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 21:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 20:27 ` Andrew Poelstra
2015-01-21 22:57 ` Dave Collins
2015-01-22 0:32 ` Rusty Russell
2015-01-22 3:12 ` David Vorick
2015-01-22 4:18 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-01-22 4:20 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-25 14:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-25 14:48 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-03 0:44 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-02-03 2:21 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-03 12:00 ` Wladimir
2015-02-03 14:30 ` Alex Morcos
2015-02-03 18:15 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-02-03 18:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-02-03 19:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-02-03 23:38 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-22 22:41 ` Zooko Wilcox-OHearn
2015-01-25 16:57 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-26 5:14 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-26 18:35 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-01-28 6:24 ` Wladimir
2015-02-06 21:38 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPg+sBhx=_DubYGZhBSMmYzeyZQd1NE_p0dLzoODY02vU0LQUQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=doug@bitcoinarmory$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox