Anyone have any tips on getting the accountid from a public key?
static long getId(byte[] publicKey) throws Exception {
byte[] publicKeyHash = MessageDigest.getInstance("SHA-256").digest(publicKey);
BigInteger bigInteger = new BigInteger(1, new byte[] {publicKeyHash[7], publicKeyHash[6], publicKeyHash[5], publicKeyHash[4], publicKeyHash[3], publicKeyHash[2], publicKeyHash[1], publicKeyHash[0]});
return bigInteger.longValue();
}
I found this snippet in the source code but trying to replicate in JS gives me no results.
Any help?
Topic: [ANN] Nxt Bounty for working JavaScript code that signs and verifies signatures (Read 8425 times)
June 03, 2014, 02:44:36 PM
March 11, 2014, 03:01:03 AM
I think Jaguars version is fast in chrome. When testing with firefox, my version ist very fast.
Hello.
If this is the case maybe then each one of you should write in the code or
in the release notes on which platform the code has best performance.
For example a developer could implement all your scripts in his code
and load dynamically a script depending on the user platform to
achieve best performances.
I think web wallet on http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/ will include JS implementation. (BloodyRookie's I guess)
January 22, 2014, 06:24:20 AM
I think Jaguars version is fast in chrome. When testing with firefox, my version ist very fast.
Hello.
If this is the case maybe then each one of you should write in the code or
in the release notes on which platform the code has best performance.
For example a developer could implement all your scripts in his code
and load dynamically a script depending on the user platform to
achieve best performances.
January 22, 2014, 03:45:44 AM
I think Jaguars version is fast in chrome. When testing with firefox, my version ist very fast.
January 22, 2014, 01:54:27 AM
I guess these are proper acct numbers:
Jaguar: 14544444716689899421
hoax: 5637350814069846194
BloodyRookie: 11095639652683007953
me: 6669070404060812420
Jaguar, could you run one last batch of tests to confirm that your one is the fastest one?
I should have some time during weekend, I think we all could take one more look at it, and try push it to the limits
Jaguar: 14544444716689899421
hoax: 5637350814069846194
BloodyRookie: 11095639652683007953
me: 6669070404060812420
Jaguar, could you run one last batch of tests to confirm that your one is the fastest one?
I should have some time during weekend, I think we all could take one more look at it, and try push it to the limits
January 21, 2014, 07:36:09 PM
I agreed to the split in the main thread. Good job to all!
Well I wouldn't mind. We all spend a lot of time coding. I guess hoax and gimre don't mind too, but I haven't heard Jaguar's opinion yet.
I agree, 25% to everyone will be a fair.
I agree that a 25% split of the bounty is fair. We all spent a good amount of time on this.
Of course, I also wouldn't be opposed to one of the founders tipping the fastest implementation
.
You can send my next to the address in my signature.
Thanks!
@ NRS crypto algo bounty contestants:
Guys, u were talking about splitting the bounty to 4 parts. Did u come to a decision? If u r agree to split the bounty then I won't spend time on speedtests.
Guys, u were talking about splitting the bounty to 4 parts. Did u come to a decision? If u r agree to split the bounty then I won't spend time on speedtests.
Well I wouldn't mind. We all spend a lot of time coding. I guess hoax and gimre don't mind too, but I haven't heard Jaguar's opinion yet.
I agree that a 25% split of the bounty is fair. We all spent a good amount of time on this.
Of course, I also wouldn't be opposed to one of the founders tipping the fastest implementation
.You can send my next to the address in my signature.
Thanks!
January 21, 2014, 02:04:51 PM
I am willing to split among those who invested a lot of time as long as the other guys are willing to do the same .
I think it is fair..What about you, Jaguar?
As for me, I don't think I deserve equal share, and if you don't mind splitting with me, I suggest 10/30/30/30
That's ok for me too
January 21, 2014, 01:48:44 PM
I am willing to split among those who invested a lot of time as long as the other guys are willing to do the same .
I think it is fair..What about you, Jaguar?
As for me, I don't think I deserve equal share, and if you don't mind splitting with me, I suggest 10/30/30/30
January 20, 2014, 02:47:13 PM
I am willing to split among those who invested a lot of time as long as the other guys are willing to do the same .
I think it is fair..What about you, Jaguar?
January 20, 2014, 10:11:00 AM
I am willing to split among those who invested a lot of time as long as the other guys are willing to do the same .
I think it is fair. . January 20, 2014, 07:45:29 AM
who invested a lot of time
...heh, much more than I expected + wanted
but it was fun January 20, 2014, 05:52:06 AM
I am willing to split among those who invested a lot of time as long as the other guys are willing to do the same .
. January 20, 2014, 05:31:10 AM
Can I get some consolation prize? 
January 20, 2014, 05:02:58 AM
So now we have 3 implementations that are essentially equal.
If one of these implementations win, wouldn't it be fair to split?
If one of these implementations win, wouldn't it be fair to split?
January 19, 2014, 11:32:13 PM
Finally finished my implementation: https://github.com/Jaguar0625/JavaScriptNrs.
Here are the numbers from my machine:
The code I am using to run the timing tests is also in the repo under the browser_test subdirectory in case anyone wants to verify the numbers.
Here are the numbers from my machine:
Code:
Public Key 3.027ms
Sign 6.169ms
Verify 4.371ms
Sign 6.169ms
Verify 4.371ms
The code I am using to run the timing tests is also in the repo under the browser_test subdirectory in case anyone wants to verify the numbers
. January 19, 2014, 08:06:03 PM
Could I kindly ask you to run test also on my code?
Are the inputs and outputs of all of your functions byte arrays?
almost, was it specified anywhere how input output should look like?
take a look at github, there's description of input output there.
Sorry, had a busy weekend. I just ran your code tonight:
Code:
Public Key 6.904ms
Sign 14.396ms
Verify 11.795ms
Sign 14.396ms
Verify 11.795ms
January 18, 2014, 05:29:17 AM
almost, was it specified anywhere how input output should look like?
Quote
- Input/output values must be strings like "8302504e4e57c6c65335289879c6915a273d3aae7bd086058e403fcd2bc18341"
January 18, 2014, 05:27:35 AM
Could I kindly ask you to run test also on my code?
Are the inputs and outputs of all of your functions byte arrays?
almost, was it specified anywhere how input output should look like?
take a look at github, there's description of input output there.
January 17, 2014, 06:27:45 PM
I was finally able to get rid of all the Long math and replace it from fast math functions from curve255.js and got much better results :
Still not as good as hoax's, but a lot better than my earlier numbers.
:Code:
Javascript needs 6.9ms/getPublicKey
Javascript needs 13.4ms/sign
Javascript needs 10.7ms/verify
Javascript needs 13.4ms/sign
Javascript needs 10.7ms/verify
Still not as good as hoax's, but a lot better than my earlier numbers.
January 17, 2014, 06:24:33 PM
Could I kindly ask you to run test also on my code?
Are the inputs and outputs of all of your functions byte arrays?
Jump to: