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
|
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 <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YE1vO-0002Ux-RB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:30:50 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.175; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YE1vO-0003xl-1i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 20:30:50 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ar1so12763261iec.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:30:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.140.68 with SMTP id iz4mr3373968icc.77.1421872244788;
Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.20.229 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:30:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
<54BFFE30.8010105@bitcoinarmory.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:30:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhx=_DubYGZhBSMmYzeyZQd1NE_p0dLzoODY02vU0LQUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Douglas Roark <doug@bitcoinarmory.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YE1vO-0003xl-1i
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
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, 21 Jan 2015 20:30:50 -0000
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
|
