Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 05:26:37AM +, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Sunday, April 14, 2013 5:09:58 AM Peter Todd wrote: > > Currently signmessage/verifymessage only supports messages signed by a > > single key. We should extend that to messages signed by n-of-m keys, or > > from the users point of view,

Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Peter Todd
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 01:21:21AM -0400, Alan Reiner wrote: > If we're going to extend/expand message signing, can we please add a > proper ASCII-armored format for it? Really, anything that encodes the > signed message next to the signature, so that there's no ambiguities > about what was signed

Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Luke-Jr
On Sunday, April 14, 2013 5:09:58 AM Peter Todd wrote: > Currently signmessage/verifymessage only supports messages signed by a > single key. We should extend that to messages signed by n-of-m keys, or > from the users point of view, P2SH multisig addresses. I think it would be wise to figure out

Re: [Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Alan Reiner
If we're going to extend/expand message signing, can we please add a proper ASCII-armored format for it? Really, anything that encodes the signed message next to the signature, so that there's no ambiguities about what was signed. You can keep the "bare signatures" as an option for backwards comp

[Bitcoin-development] RFC: extend signmessage/verifymessage to P2SH multisig

2013-04-13 Thread Peter Todd
Currently signmessage/verifymessage only supports messages signed by a single key. We should extend that to messages signed by n-of-m keys, or from the users point of view, P2SH multisig addresses. rpc.cpp:signmessage() returns the output of SignCompact(). That in turn starts with a header byte ma

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Who is creating non-DER signatures?

2013-04-13 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > Actual network rules will need to come later. However, even just not > accepting them into memory pools will it make very hard (if not impossible) > for the buggy clients that create transactions to get any confirmations. I'm > not sure... 0.

Re: [Bitcoin-development] Who is creating non-DER signatures?

2013-04-13 Thread Pieter Wuille
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > I've monitored all transactions the past weeks (1.4M transactions), and it > seems 9641 of them contain at least one non-standard signature. See > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169620.0 for a list of the top > addresses that had coin