The satoshi client is only broken if you got that hex as the output of signrawtransaction.
So the satoshi client can just troll around and smash things up, so no other client gets a fair chance to be able to create transactions. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script.cpp#L261 <-- this is where the satoshi client fail. the client is bad, and sipa(the dev who commited this) should feel bad. |
|
|
|
Why should Bitcoin protocol accept all openssl formats?
What we need is a protocol, not mad people whining in a forum. That sure won't make them change.
the fix in the satoshi client includes this: // See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8392.msg127623#msg127623
// A canonical signature exists of: <30> <total len> <02> <len R> <R> <02> <len S> <S> <hashtype>
// Where R and S are not negative (their first byte has its highest bit not set), and not
// excessively padded (do not start with a 0 byte, unless an otherwise negative number follows,
// in which case a single 0 byte is necessary and even required).
a link to this thread, is not the way of creating a good protocol standard. Again: bitcoin is a big hack job, create a standard and stick too it. btw. would you please include my transaction in a block? |
|
|
|
@kokjo: mind sharing the code how to embed the OpenSSL-created signature into a sigScript? I expect the problem is caused by how you wrap/pad it, rather than with the signature itself.
sc = [script.OP_PUSH(sig+"\x01"), script.OP_PUSH(key.publickey)]
tx.inputs[0].script = script.encode_script(sc)
as said before its the statoshi clients problem, not me generating bad(wrongly padded) signatures. i already have tracked down the problem in the satoshi client. but the bottom line is: your transaction might get mined after all. send it to luke-jr - he seems to be running the most liberal mining node out there. or mine it yourself  wasn't that the guy that put prayers in the blockchain? I think i have trolled him a bit too much to ask him to accept my transaction with out appropriate fees, and the satoshi client will not accept the transaction unless its over 11 months old. |
|
|
|
kokjo, what was the OpenSSL command/code you used to generate that signature?
There are reasons canonical checks were adopted (it will fix a variety of attacks and sharp edges in the protocol). However if your OpenSSL is generating non canonical sigs, we'd very much like to find out why.
ssl = ctypes.cdll.LoadLibrary(ctypes.util.find_library('ssl'))
NID_secp256k1 = 714 # from openssl/obj_mac.h
def check_result (val, func, args):
if val == 0:
raise ValueError
else:
return ctypes.c_void_p (val)
ssl.EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name.restype = ctypes.c_void_p
ssl.EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name.errcheck = check_result
...
def __init__(self):
self.k = ssl.EC_KEY_new_by_curve_name(NID_secp256k1)
...
def sign(self, hash):
sig_size = ssl.ECDSA_size(self.k)
mb_sig = ctypes.create_string_buffer(sig_size)
sig_size0 = ctypes.POINTER(ctypes.c_int)()
assert 1 == ssl.ECDSA_sign(0, hash, len(hash), mb_sig, ctypes.byref(sig_size0), self.k)
return mb_sig.raw
|
|
|
|
Is there a kokjo-coin available?  No. But it will certainly come if the devs continue to behave like tards |
|
|
|
Fuck you liar! sipa added the check only 11 months ago.
Don't talk to me like this - I only tried to help you, but I can swear as well. 11 months ago is long enough to cause a hard fork, if they revert the change now. no its not. there already exist transactions that violates the beauty checks, and other clients accept these transactions too. |
|
|
|
Well, good luck with that, I guess.
so you are okay with that the developers is destroying bitcoin by trying to make it better? prediction: in a few years bitcoin will be worth nothing and a altcoin not based on the satoshi source with a solid standard will thrive. because developers fucked bitcoin up, with all kind of insane checking and worse coding skills. bitcoin will nothing more then a bunch of dirty hacks. |
|
|
|
|
you don't have to tell my where my perfectly valid transaction fails bitcoind's beauty check, you need to remove the check from the satoshi client and stop adding useless crap to it.
the signature was generated with openssl, and is perfectly valid, my client and blockchain.org agrees.
The satoshi client should not be the protocol standard, of cource i could fix my transaction and give you people a free pass to fuck around more with bitcoin.
I will not allow this, and i object to the elitist culture among the main developers.
fix bitcoin, go make a standard and stick to it.
|
|
|
|
Would you mind posting the hex of the signed raw transaction?
I was just looking in script.spp, and this error is caused by an incorrect length. When you attach your hashtype, are you changing the total length?
0x30 <total_length> 0x02 <length_of_R> <R> 0x02 <length_of_S> <S> <hashtype>
0100000001fd31efbac93daa8743525898e81ebcfc69988484ede77537369117112b03dfb5000000006c49304402203ccac0d763cea96b7eefcc8bb77083312d5f74f19f3f38a2ef7c09a56303ec37022014247484bc2e6f979ea783753b92751deff8ea69f488483c18349c92ee8c517300000121020c04fd79c0de8acaf84cf68c92b5a64357b83c7e8c5115ee17ca5179b2516b95ffffffff01e41f0100000000001976a914b110cace3b1d8181df64854ddcf85bc635d10de888ac00000000 why would i change the length, are bitcoin in the business of messing with other people's standard? |
|
|
|
What's funny is that this very thread explains why non-canonical signatures are bad, and why we stopped accepting them.
Just out of curiosity, is openssl giving you a padded signature under normal circumstances, or are you going out of your way to make it give you garbage?
nope not at all, i give it the key(generated by the satoshi client, btw) and the transaction hash, it gives me the signature and i append hashtype. blockchain.info accepts but bitcoind rejects. you people should really stop implementing features, and sit down create a standard and start fix bitcoin instead. |
|
|
|
|
blockchain.info accepts my transaction vis pushtx, but bitcoind does not find it aesthetically pleasing enough.
if bitcoin fails, the blame goes to the developers for not having a standard to implement, but making shit up as you go along.
|
|
|
|
BITCOIN IS SHIT, it does not accept signatures from the most well know implementation of crypto algorithms: openssl. ThreadRPCServer method=sendrawtransaction
ERROR: Non-canonical signature: wrong length marker
ERROR: CScriptCheck() : f57a2c4d3b8f9653eaee0d5611fcf7c918bcc8903894e148c5b56486fb3f8eaa VerifySignature failed
ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : ConnectInputs failed f57a2c4d3b8f9653eaee0d5611fcf7c918bcc8903894e148c5b56486fb3f8eaa
why the fuck is this stuff implemented the way it is? bitcoin and especially the satoshi client is a stinking pile faulty patches on other patches of bad and stupidly written code! All main developers is bad at coding, and should feel bad about it. /rant over |
|
|
|
Provides a shocking point chip mining cooperation projects it: 1) SMIC 0.11um 1GHS single-chip design objectives; 2) 8-16 cascade, requiring only PL2303 USB to serial IC; 3) Unit Operator force prices lower than our competitors 50%; 4) plate fee expectations with partners equally, each of 50%, about 600,000 yuanRMB; 5) promises 75 days of delivery volume production chip; 6) the company signed and sealed agreement forms; Anyone Interested in please send email to: lelehz@126.compics or fake! |
|
|
|
The price of Bitcoin is set by Mt Gox. There is no dispute about that.
yes there is. bitstamp is gaining big time! its only a matter of time. |
|
|
|
LOL, that not possible... conclusion: you don't know shit about what you are talking about. Oh, but it is. We encrypt the drive image; check this out: https://www.google.com/search?q=qcow2%20encryption. The first article (in my view) is from Daniel P. Berrange. Check the "Virtual Disks" section in his article. may i ask how you are able to run the servers? how can your computers read, write and 'understand' what is stored on them disks with out knowing the secrets? using homomorphic encryption, and doing all calculations that way? Cool story bro, not gonna happen(at least not this year). the fact is: if men in black suits showed up, and you did not know the key, the computer would and black suit-guys would win as they are pretty smart people. This is only security by obscurity. |
|
|
|
|
and also:
stop feeding the troll(with false information), and go fix your chappy servers...
|
|
|
|
If you think they're expensive, don't buy it. We sell quality, not mega-cheap hosting.
why would i even do the opposite? your quality/price ratio is just way too low. First off all, everything "out there" is paravirtualization. You don't even get your own kernel; you share it.
Nope. Found HyperV and Kvm at several places, with even better machines then yours, to a cheaper price and with good SLAs. Second, trust me; we know what we're doing. Our infrastructure is awesome.
only scammer or very stupid people would would tell random strangers in a paranoid/crypto forum to trust them, ergo: you are a scammer. ...or your infrastructure is properly not that good, cause you are to stupid to make it. - Full encryption possible (not even we know what you have)
LOL, that not possible... conclusion: you don't know shit about what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
