rich1.0npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rhttps://nostr.ae/npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-01-21 📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Douglas Roark <doug at 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