Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
It might be OK to just use SHA256(privkey+sighash) as the k value, instead of
the more complicated RFC. I should ask Adam or someone else what the
differences are.
This would also have the advantage that given a tx that has the same inputs and
outputs, the signed version will always be the same. Combined with
deterministic key hierarchies, two different instances of the same wallet would
create identical transactions when asked to perform identical spends. This may
prove useful for keeping cloned wallets synchronised in future.
Original comment by hearn@google.com
on 15 Aug 2013 at 1:33
FYI, deterministic ECDSA per RFC 6979 was added to BC in our latest release
(1.50).
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 14 Dec 2013 at 1:09
Excellent. Another reason to upgrade. Are you in contact with the Spongy Castle
folks at all?
Original comment by hearn@google.com
on 14 Dec 2013 at 7:29
A new spongy castle is now out. Peter, do we need to do anything to get
deterministic ECDSA or will it just happen automagically?
Original comment by mh.in.en...@gmail.com
on 6 Feb 2014 at 7:04
It is not automatic; you need to use an alternative constructor for ECDSASigner
(at least when used for signing):
new ECDSASigner(new HMacDSAKCalculator(new SHA256Digest()))
or with whichever digest was used to process the input message.
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 7 Feb 2014 at 6:40
Can this be closed since the patch applied for
http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/issues/detail?id=497 included the DetECDSA
change?
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 10 Apr 2014 at 3:02
Yes, indeed. Thanks for the reminder. I'll add it to the release notes as well.
Thanks for implementing this feature! Bouncy Castle makes writing bitcoinj so
much easier. Bitcoin users everywhere appreciate your tireless efforts.
Original comment by mh.in.en...@gmail.com
on 10 Apr 2014 at 9:02
You are welcome, of course, and I will pass on your thanks to David Hook, who
did the hard yards on RFC 6979.
Original comment by peter.de...@gmail.com
on 11 Apr 2014 at 5:13
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
hearn@google.com
on 11 Aug 2013 at 7:16