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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net>) id 1YBSAc-0002pp-DM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:55:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of niftybox.net
designates 95.142.167.147 as permitted sender)
client-ip=95.142.167.147;
envelope-from=c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net; helo=i3.hyper.to;
Received: from i3.hyper.to ([95.142.167.147])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YBSAa-0005w2-Vi
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:55:54 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BE7E00AC;
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:39:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from i3.hyper.to ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (i3.hyper.to [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032)
with ESMTP id RlcsmTR_zRum; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:39:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1AEE00B0;
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:39:24 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at i3.hyper.to
Received: from i3.hyper.to ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (i3.hyper.to [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026)
with ESMTP id WCdh9dImYfFd; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:39:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mimiz (142-254-47-143.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [142.254.47.143])
by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF1E5E00AC;
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 18:39:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1421257150.8969.4.camel@niftybox.net>
From: devrandom <c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net>
To: Ruben de Vries <ruben@blocktrail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:39:10 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CABETNRtquBWEZZ=jOcWojcgMTpjU5nWP9p74DArLxOXqqQT7og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABETNRtquBWEZZ=jOcWojcgMTpjU5nWP9p74DArLxOXqqQT7og@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.7-0ubuntu1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YBSAa-0005w2-Vi
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public
keys for p2sh multisig transactions
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:55:54 -0000
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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> =E2=80=8BRuben de Vries
> =E2=80=8BCTO, 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 Ashbur=
n.
> 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 mai=
ling list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourcef=
orge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--=20
Miron / devrandom
|
