1 2016-03-02 02:28:39 <midnightmagic> warren: hello, I would like to do some basic gnupg key verification for your gitian build signing key. Is there some well-known place that you hang out where you've posted something linking you to keyid 0xB1179EB7347DC10D ?
 2 2016-03-02 02:29:22 <kanzure> hrm i think i just got his key the other day and i commented on how it was the same from gitian, but uh.. i support your verification request.
 3 2016-03-02 02:29:34 <midnightmagic> :)
 4 2016-03-02 02:29:50 <kanzure> i mean not from gitian, i mean er, from the gitian build key folders
 5 2016-03-02 02:30:13 <midnightmagic> so far gmax and petertodd have gone wayyyyy out of their way to introduce keys through non-face-to-face means
 6 2016-03-02 02:31:29 <kanzure> please elaborate
 7 2016-03-02 02:32:13 <midnightmagic> petertodd has a youtube video where he reads off the longform keyid (or fingerprint, I forget now) and gmax has keys linked back to his wikipedia days, and includes a photo id which apparently nobody ever checks.
 8 2016-03-02 02:34:07 <Luke-Jr> eh, photo ids in keys don't really prove much
 9 2016-03-02 02:34:17 <Luke-Jr> after all, a fake key could just copy that
10 2016-03-02 02:36:03 <midnightmagic> the guy who is in this particular photo id does presentations and calls himself gmaxwell, and the guy who is doing the presentations does not appear to object to it. in essence, the guy in the videos appears to endorse the distribution of a key with his photo id in it. additionally, the photo id is identical to the one on the wikimedia pages, and is linked back to those times, as well as the xip
11 2016-03-02 02:36:09 <midnightmagic> h times and mozilla times.
12 2016-03-02 02:37:27 <midnightmagic> this sort of reverse verification wouldn't mean much if the key were just some rando. but it's used in very prominent places. additionally, the user who calls himself gmaxwell in here, consistently presents that as his key, connects from the same places consistently and has for like six years, and commits stuff and to stuff using his key all the time. after all this time, it counts.
13 2016-03-02 02:56:48 <achow101> well warren's key is on the mit keyserver https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xB1179EB7347DC10D. It has sigs from a bunch of people in bitcoin development
14 2016-03-02 06:37:31 <warren> midnightmagic: I think it might miss the point to trust a gitian because particular people signed sigs, it is less bad to trust it because a number of unrelated persons signed the same hashes, it's ultimately best if you verify the hashes yourself.
15 2016-03-02 06:38:36 <midnightmagic> warren: i submit gitian sigs. my comparison is irrelevant if it matches up with keys I just randomly downloaded from pgp.mit.edu
16 2016-03-02 06:40:10 <midnightmagic> warren: besides, unless you have a specific code signing key, key verification (in its necessarily lesser forms) is good for other stuff too. Do you publish your key anywhere else? maybe somewhere in fedora..?
17 2016-03-02 06:40:55 <midnightmagic> .. I'm less interested in transitive trust than doing some form of rudimentary checking myself.
18 2016-03-02 07:34:02 <warren> midnightmagic: http://wtogami.blogspot.com/2013/06/transition-to-new-gpg-key.html  the old key is signed pretty extensively by Red Hat/Fedora people
19 2016-03-02 08:18:45 <midnightmagic> warren: perfect, thanks
20 2016-03-02 18:09:42 <Luke-Jr> wumpus: ping
21 2016-03-02 18:18:14 <wumpus> pong
22 2016-03-02 21:35:30 <Chris_Stewart_5> Are digital signatures in scriptSigs encoded as little endian or big endian?
23 2016-03-02 23:02:46 <kre10s> 901410420f34c2786b4bae593e22596631b025f3ff46e200fc1d4b52ef49bbdc2ed00b26c584b7e32523fb01be2294a1f8a5eb0cf71a203cc034ced46ea92a8df16c6e9ffffffff01c0c62d00000000001976a914e7c1345fc8f87c68170b3aa798a956c2fe6a9eff88ac00000000
24 2016-03-02 23:02:46 <kre10s> Hello. I've been trying to build a transaction manually just for kicks! But cannot for the life of me get the net to accept. the only error I get is script was not verified successfully... could someone give me a hint please? 0100000001e94518816f667cb3292f6c0f5879ef93f2fa134875672f031fdcd2f93e6aadf6000000008c493046022100d38e51dabba7af8b191312f16cb0f3538a87fd4ac0c4cb85b294e1a6694de7ae022100f6ad6a3ef9d2dc1f032f67754813faf293ef79580f6c2f29b37c666f811845e
25 2016-03-02 23:02:58 <kre10s> It's supposed to go on the testnet.
26 2016-03-02 23:08:39 <Luke-Jr> kre10s: manually to what degree? surely not doing the EC math by hand?
27 2016-03-02 23:10:46 <kre10s> nope. I got libs for that... although I am doing the DER encoding.
28 2016-03-02 23:12:49 <kre10s> privkey for mrvHv6ggk5gFMatuJtBKAzktTU1N3MYdu2 where the unspent coins are at is sha256("some big long brainwallet password") if you care to know.
29 2016-03-02 23:13:59 <Luke-Jr> note brainwallets are considered completely insecure
30 2016-03-02 23:14:25 <kre10s> yup. but for testing...
31 2016-03-02 23:14:46 <Luke-Jr> hmm
32 2016-03-02 23:14:59 <Luke-Jr> everything looks syntatically good, so I'd have to guess the problem is with the signature
33 2016-03-02 23:15:21 <Luke-Jr> you know BIP 66 I assume>?
34 2016-03-02 23:15:48 <kre10s> I am signing 0100000001e94518816f667cb3292f6c0f5879ef93f2fa134875672f031fdcd2f93e6aadf6000000001976a9147d13547544ecc1f28eda0c0766ef4eb214de104588acffffffff01c0c62d00000000001976a914e7c1345fc8f87c68170b3aa798a956c2fe6a9eff88ac0000000001000000
35 2016-03-02 23:18:31 <kre10s> thank's for the BIP 66 reference. I'll check If I comply.
36 2016-03-02 23:23:54 <mrkent_> Is it feasible to use HD xpub to derive a vanity address?
37 2016-03-02 23:23:57 <kre10s> hmm. even the DER encoding is OK....
38 2016-03-02 23:29:35 <Luke-Jr> mrkent_: it would be slower, but not impossible
39 2016-03-02 23:29:44 <Luke-Jr> kre10s: are you signing the correct data?
40 2016-03-02 23:31:14 <kre10s> I think so...
41 2016-03-02 23:36:16 <Luke-Jr> kre10s: throw bitcoind in gdb and set a breakpoint to see what data it's using?
42 2016-03-02 23:37:38 <kre10s> bitcoind will want to sync before doing anything IIRC... got no time for that. I think I encoded R and S wrong.
43 2016-03-02 23:38:26 <Luke-Jr> kre10s: it only needs to sync to the point where your inputs exist, which I assume you're already at
44 2016-03-02 23:51:59 <mrkent_> > it would be slower, but not impossible @Luke-Jr: do you know roughly how much slower?
45 2016-03-02 23:52:28 <Luke-Jr> mrkent_: I don't know, no. Depends on hashing speed I think.
46 2016-03-02 23:52:48 <mrkent_> that is, 1 hd derivation vs 1 private key generation
47 2016-03-02 23:52:49 <Luke-Jr> mrkent_: It would be interesting to see a wallet that does it in the background to queue up such addresses.
48 2016-03-02 23:53:03 <Luke-Jr> mrkent_: private key generation in this case is simply adding 1 to a 256-bit number.
49 2016-03-02 23:53:19 <Luke-Jr> the initial starting point is properly random, but after that it's +1
50 2016-03-02 23:55:54 <mrkent_> What's the fastest HD wallet library out there? I can try to bench mark it
51 2016-03-02 23:57:10 <Luke-Jr> I don't know
52 2016-03-02 23:57:43 <mrkent_> I'm thinking it'd be cool to have a wallet sell vanity keys as a a feature.