See X.690, section 8.3.2: If the contents octets of an integer value encoding consist of more than one octet, then the bits of the first octet and bit 8 of the second octet: a) shall not all be ones and b) shall not all be. Why he did it? Because we are not provided of the original Sartre text and therefore is impossible to compute the valid SHA256 image (which text? how is formatted? which charset? newlines? every little change in the text would change the hash) and we cannot search for a given hex string into the blockchain. The encoding of 'R' is malformed because the leading '00' byte is redundant with the sign bit of the following byte '25'. Wright tried to sell to the world and old signature of a transaction as a signature of the hash of a text. As a rule, such strings cannot be decoded without additional processing or human intervention, and because of this some inexperienced users mistakenly think that these strings are not decodable. For example, this can happen if the source outputs an unexpected Base64 standard, the user copied unnecessary data, or something damaged the Base64 value. The algorithm are the same, if the "transaction" and "file" are the same, or better, if their hashes are the same, one signature for the transaction is a valid signature for the file and viceversa. Quite often, users cannot decode Base64, because they got a malformed or invalid string. The Bitcoin protocol describe how a transaction has to be signed: The clever move by Wright is to sign the SHA256 of this file, so the final signature is something like:Īnd one may remark the double use of the hash function SHA256 (while a standard signature would be something like secp256k1(sha256(message)). As the text is big, the signature is the decryption of the hash of this text. Wright claimed that he provided a signature on a large file, a text from Sartre. It's, as someone suggested, like to cut out the last page from a contract, paste it to another contract and claim the new contract is ok. Craig Wright has recovered an old (and real) Satoshi's signature and tried to provide it as a new signature to validate his identity. The scam is not based on a cryptographic attak but on what is signed. But I either get errors such as 'Error: Malformed UTF-8 data', or a different result than the expected hmacDigest. Your misunderstanding of Bitcoin is hubris, not unnecessary complexity.Short version: the signature is correct, it is a real signature and therefore it is possible to verify it with one's favourite software. I have tried to follow some answers like this one: Decode a Base64 String using CryptoJS. ghost mentioned this issue on Aug 13, 2018. I really don't understand why there is a move to make a currency so complex when the original intention was for it to alleviate the economic pain and hardship on earth. : 1 error (s) occurred: awslaunchtemplate.test: InvalidUserData.Malformed: Invalid BASE64 encoding of user data. In effect we don't use ASN.1 all, but a very restricted subset of it due to consensus issues surrounding using a lengthy, poorly defined, and malleable specification. The original releases of Bitcoin effectively used ASN.1 BER, and this was reduced to a strict definition of DER in BIP66. Message signing using P2PKH with signmessage in Bitcoin Core and other tools uses a feature of ECDSA which was re-discovered after the creation of the software called pubkey recovery, this is frequently but not always encoded as base64 as a human compatible representation. It's not, there's no base64 representation of signatures used in Bitcoin consensus or transactions. In building a raw transaction how is the base64 format of a signature incorporated into the transaction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |