1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <robert.brautigam@netmind.hu>) id 1RpkFa-0005Dd-Et
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:33:42 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from netmind.hu ([85.17.45.8] helo=mail.netmind.hu)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RpkFY-0004Um-7N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:33:42 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (188-195-182-160-dynip.superkabel.de
[188.195.182.160])
by mail.netmind.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B4122E23E4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:31:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4F1EEB6D.8080004@netmind.hu>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:33:33 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QnJhdXRpZ2FtIFLDs2JlcnQ=?= <robert.brautigam@netmind.hu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <4F1DBD07.3050904@netmind.hu>
In-Reply-To: <4F1DBD07.3050904@netmind.hu>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <4F1DBD07.3050904@netmind.hu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1RpkFY-0004Um-7N
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECC Signature Issue
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:33:42 -0000
On 01/23/2012 06:50 PM, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> I double checked that the official (C++) client is indeed successful
>> here. Oddly enough the bitcoinj implementation also seems to fail to
>> verify this transaction, which seems to point in the direction of
>> BouncyCastle (which we both use).
>
> BitCoinJ does not verify signatures (it is an SPV implementation), so
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you using old code? There used
> to be some stuff that checked signatures but it was removed some time
> ago.
Hi Mike,
Bitcoinj has a class named ECKey. I just hardwired it with a main() to
check the mentioned transaction's signature.
I debugged the official client to get the exact data (hash, signed data
and public key). I checked signatures of transactions prior to the
mentioned one, all work, so the test code and the data I got are very
likely correct.
It might be that I'm using old bitcoinj code (I think it is 0.3, can't
find a version string anywhere), but I doubt that has any impact on the
ecc verification. Even if it did, I got my on code too, so what are the
odds that two implementations fail at the same point?
Anyway it would be helpful if someone just tried to run a verification
independently with the mentioned transaction (with BouncyCastle and with
openssl) and see whether he/she gets the same result.
I tried with BouncyCastle 140 and the newest 1.46, both fail.
Robert.
|
