--- Day changed Fri Mar 31 2017
00:55 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:55 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
00:56 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #secp256k1     
00:56 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #secp256k1     
03:25 < andytoshi> 72 DER + sighash plus the push opcode would give you 74. just speculating on where the number might have originated..
04:23 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #secp256k1     
05:27 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:28 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #secp256k1     
05:30 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]     
05:31 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #secp256k1     
08:15 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
08:15 -!- afk11 [~afk11@gateway/tor-sasl/afk11] has joined #secp256k1     
10:14 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
11:17 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has joined #secp256k1     
14:35 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]     
14:36 -!- arubi [~ese168@gateway/tor-sasl/ese168] has joined #secp256k1     
15:06 < ofek> andytoshi, I *think* sighash is included in 72 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0062.mediawiki#DER_encoding
15:08 < sipa> ofek: the signature is up to 71 if it's lowS (which is required in Bitcoin by standardness) or 72 otherwise
15:09 < sipa> ofek: BIP62 is also confusing, because it treats the sighash as part of the DER encoding, while it's just something appended in Bitcoin
15:10 < sipa> _with_ sighash byte, Bitcoin signatures are max 72 bytes (when lowS) and 73 otherwise
15:10 < sipa> maybe the 74 comes from the push opcode as andytoshi says, but it's a stretch
15:15 < ofek> sipa, right ok. thanks
15:18 < sipa> but the sighash byte is not included in the secp256k1 output of course
19:06 < gmaxwell> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/cerberus/notes50-survey-discussion.html
19:16 < TD-Linux> responses to question #10 are interesting
19:20 < gmaxwell> yea... I thought so too.
19:21 < gmaxwell> and uh, on 11 that wasn't something I knew!
19:22 < sipa> gmaxwell: really? we were just discussing that in #bitcoin-core-dev not so long ago (though in C++, not C)
19:22 < sipa> a char* pointer can alias any type, but not the other way around
19:25 < gmaxwell> oh I might have misunderstood 11.
19:25 < gmaxwell> (if you recall in that discussion I was explaining alignment)
19:26 < sipa> they're talking about creating a char array, and then taking a char pointer into it, casting it to a pointer of another type, and then using the result
19:26 < gmaxwell> well duh you can't do that, if nothing else it breaks alignment.
19:26 < sipa> the way the question is formulated may imply that the user takes alignment into account
19:28 < gmaxwell> I'm not sure that it does, -- (since a malloced region will always have the largest alignment for any ordinary type)
19:28 < sipa> i didn't know about 5, 7, 8, 9, 12
19:28 < sipa> i guess my mental model of a pointer was that it behaves like an integer as long as you don't derference it
19:28 < gmaxwell> I was misreading 11 as you couldn't copy data from another type into a char array and get it back.
19:29 < gmaxwell> sipa: ah, well think about how that could possibly work with segmented memory?
19:29 < TD-Linux> I'm really sad that rust structs don't have a defined memory layout by default
19:30 < sipa> gmaxwell: maybe i'm not clear
19:30 < sipa> for example, i would have expected 7 to be implementation defined
19:31 < gmaxwell> 9 I was surprised to hear that it would currently cause miscompliation.
19:32 < TD-Linux> it didn't have any reports of actual miscompilation though, unlike 10
19:55 -!- ryan-c [~ryan@znc.rya.nc] has quit [Quit: quitting]     
23:44 -!- jtimon [~quassel@70.30.134.37.dynamic.jazztel.es] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]