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
|
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 <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1XHd0c-0005Rg-UE
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:10:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.149.80 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.149.80; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail149080.authsmtp.com;
Received: from outmail149080.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.80])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1XHd0a-0006jj-Vd for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:10:50 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt17.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s7DIAgER046826;
Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:10:42 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [25.85.204.243] ([24.114.40.29]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s7DIAbq5057579
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:10:39 +0100 (BST)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <A6E1C677-89CD-425D-BE36-A2A4C6837165@ricmoo.com>
References: <A6E1C677-89CD-425D-BE36-A2A4C6837165@ricmoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:10:32 -0700
To: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <d2f135de-16cc-41df-8ec5-de3089cf3741@email.android.com>
X-Server-Quench: 22b0bc82-2315-11e4-b396-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdwEUGUATAgsB AmIbWl1eUV17XWI7 aQ5PbARZfE5OQQdj
T0xPR01TWkZvdWVw VF8bUhx1cgJPNnh1 Z0MsXHIJXBYpfURg
QE1VEHAHZDJkdTIc WUZFdwNWdQpKLx5A PgF4GhFYa3VsFCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtSLCNN RwwLMWdaaEAMAj4x XVgdEDQ1EQUZXSw1
NBUtNl8bGg4IL0gp LVomXxRedXc8
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.40.29/465
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
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: 1XHd0a-0006jj-Vd
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Another weird transaction question...
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, 13 Aug 2014 18:10:51 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 13 August 2014 11:00:22 GMT-07:00, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com> wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>Sorry to keep bugging you all, as I slowly verify the blockchain one
>transaction after another with my own implementation, but I have found
>another transaction that is obviously correct (as it is verified by the
>legit client) that has me seeking clarification.
>
>This multisig output script:
>
>https://blockchain.info/tx-index/12809044/0 (txid:
>274f8be3b7b9b1a220285f5f71f61e2691dd04df9d69bb02a8b3b85f91fb1857)
>
>contains a public key:
>
>00f2b7816db49d55d24df7bdffdbc1e203b424e8cd39f5651ab938e5e4a193569e
>
>Are invalid public keys permitted and silently ignored? Or does the
>0x00 prefix have some interesting meaning?
Have you looked at the Bitcoin Core script test cases yet? You might be surprised at what is allowed. Equally, read the source code! In particular follow the block acceptance logic line by line from start to finish.
In any case, the Bitcoin protocol doesn't care whether or not a public key is valid.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJT66oXMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhcgKCACT18WjN11SCuX5qyeq
D5zOtGBsAtPMWr8CJuds4gLIkRtxDxPy9cuIMzwLylaC0yvFSIrG6rAIcqqRpkEH
hcJj2IXyTRVr/mxg3qDzphYuwWQAgUzBgbhPsHtl8SvnbzJgEdXCsErGs3eW6JTR
I5OXeMVT8ZKQVJUKCNGdzlH4673Gh6fIzwW1cPLATt486ByCk5YRXC14IGasxnlg
6IWm4r/I6gOAB7FiPCHm60Q2DJOsX+VEFe3U28Zxlx06i0Ij9JYoKbTDu8e12bSB
YFUBwGCbwWr/Xcygg0nWyrEMVk5dcxk/30asF/dEczHRZo9DNUdKt4IAESd+GGC2
P9g4
=e0do
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
