[BOUNTY: 2.0 BTC] [CLAIMED] Message Signing in Armory - page 2.

dashingriddler

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1001

Quote from: jackjack on June 15, 2013, 04:07:13 PM

Quote from: dashingriddler on June 14, 2013, 11:13:04 AM

There is a webpage which can do the work for you
http://brainwallet.org/#sign
You need to provide your private key (u can get it on the SIGN MESSAGE window of armory by selecting the address using address button)
This runs on java script - so your private key wont get sent to any web server

The point is precisely not to use another software but rather having everything done in Python

I do agree. But this is just for people who wish to sign a message but are using armory. I had to spend lot of time to figure this out as needed to sign some message. I hope it helps someone

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

Quote from: dashingriddler on June 14, 2013, 11:13:04 AM

There is a webpage which can do the work for you
http://brainwallet.org/#sign
You need to provide your private key (u can get it on the SIGN MESSAGE window of armory by selecting the address using address button)
This runs on java script - so your private key wont get sent to any web server

The point is precisely not to use another software but rather having everything done in Python

dashingriddler

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1001

There is a webpage which can do the work for you
http://brainwallet.org/#sign
You need to provide your private key (u can get it on the SIGN MESSAGE window of armory by selecting the address using address button)
This runs on java script - so your private key wont get sent to any web server

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

Quote from: ?? on ??

I have an armory wallet and need to sign a message to prove ownership of a particular address to recover scammed funds. I'm running the MacOSx. Is the message signing compatible with bitcoin-qt yet? If so, How do I sign in this method? I currently tried verifying a signed message and it failed in bitcoin-qt.

Thank you!

I don't think etotheipi already put the code in Armory (I can be wrong though)
If you have python on your OSX I can make tweak my code a bit to do what you want until it's implemented

greBit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

champion! thanks

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

1.
You need to add that function:

Code:

def DecodeBase58Check(sec):
	vchRet = b58decode(sec, None)
	secret = vchRet[0:-4]
	csum = vchRet[-4:]
	hash = Hash(secret)
	cs32 = hash[0:4]
	if cs32 != csum:
		return None
	else:
		return secret

pvk1=DecodeBase58Check("5KWLD8VF29WR36qR2YM3wWLDuePHJAP4YKgCMcfvNN7TTxSFgFx")

2.

Code:

pubkey = EC_KEY(pvk1, bool(compressed key or not?)).pubkey  #this is an object
pbk = pubkey.ser()   #the serialization itself: 04+x+y or 02+x or 03+x

greBit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: jackjack on May 11, 2013, 01:18:50 PM

I just released on github before your message: https://github.com/jackjack-jj/jasvet/blob/master/jasvet.py

Im trying to make a quick and dirty script to sign messages that are compatible with Bitcoin & Armory clients and came across your nicely written Python module .

Just wondering if you could give me a couple of pointers to get me started

Quote

#
# Some tests with ugly output
# You can delete the print commands in FormatText() after testing
#

pvk1='\x01'*32

text0='Hello world!'

FTVerbose=True
sv0=ASv0(pvk1, text0)
print sv0
verifySignature(sv0['address'], sv0['b64-signature'], sv0['message'])
print
print ASv1B64(pvk1, text0)
print
print ASv1CS(pvk1, text0)

How can I get a representation of my private key from base58 format (e.g. 5KWLD8VF29WR36qR2YM3wWLDuePHJAP4YKgCMcfvNN7TTxSFgFx) so I can plug it into `pvk1` ?

Can I just do the following ...

Quote

pvk1 = b58decode('5KWLD...', None)

Secondly, how can I calculate the public key from pvk1?

cheers!

picobit

hero member

Activity: 547

Merit: 500

Decor in numeris

Quote from: jackjack on May 17, 2013, 09:50:34 AM

Quote from: picobit on May 17, 2013, 09:32:09 AM

Quote from: etotheipi on May 11, 2013, 08:15:46 PM

Ahh. You know I never used easy_install, but I just tried it. That really is easy!

At least until you want to uninstall again. No luck. Which is why pip is preferred over easy_install, and preferably in a virtual_env.

Care to explain? I never heard anything about that

unlike real packaging systems, easy_install drops everything in the main Python directory structure. There is no central database of what was installed by which package, and no way to uninstall the stuff again. This can make it kind of hard to return to a clean installation, or to get rid of unnecessary packages.

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

Quote from: picobit on May 17, 2013, 09:32:09 AM

Quote from: etotheipi on May 11, 2013, 08:15:46 PM

Ahh. You know I never used easy_install, but I just tried it. That really is easy!

At least until you want to uninstall again. No luck. Which is why pip is preferred over easy_install, and preferably in a virtual_env.

Care to explain? I never heard anything about that

picobit

hero member

Activity: 547

Merit: 500

Decor in numeris

Quote from: etotheipi on May 11, 2013, 08:15:46 PM

Ahh. You know I never used easy_install, but I just tried it. That really is easy!

At least until you want to uninstall again. No luck. Which is why pip is preferred over easy_install, and preferably in a virtual_env.

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

As etotheipi asked me I just pushed a new version, which doesn't need any dependency

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

Thanks
I think it's easily tweakable. If anybody (etotheipi or any reader in the future) got a problem, just PM me or complain here!

Pieter Wuille

legendary

Activity: 1072

Merit: 1181

Just as a FYI, the C secp256k1 library I'm writing has support for creating recoverable signatures, and doing key recovery (though not the - admittedly weird - serialization that Bitcoin uses for it).

etotheipi

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1093

Core Armory Developer

Quote from: jackjack on May 11, 2013, 08:11:50 PM

easy_install ecdsa must work
I'm sure I can get rid of that dependency though

Ahh. You know I never used easy_install, but I just tried it. That really is easy!

Okay, it works now. I might have to dig in a little bit to tweak things. But it looks like exactly what I wanted. PM me a payment address.
Thanks jackjack!

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

easy_install ecdsa must work
I'm sure I can get rid of that dependency though

etotheipi

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1093

Core Armory Developer

Quote from: jackjack on May 11, 2013, 05:16:25 PM

I changed the Readme, is it enough?

Code looks good, but I can't try it because I don't have the ecdsa module. What/where is that?

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

I changed the Readme, is it enough?

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

Great

The CRC24 is used to check that the ASCII armor wasn't modified. So it's calculated on the data you send to base64, ie (lb+r+s) or (lb+r+s+msg)

etotheipi

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1093

Core Armory Developer

Quote from: jackjack on May 11, 2013, 03:16:20 PM

As a Bitcoin signed message will always have the same, fixed format I think we don't need to use packets as they are used to provide flexibility
That would for example lead to:

signature = byte + r + s
sig+msg = byte + r + s + msg

Text rules (dash, etc...) in RFC2440 can (and should imo) be used

That way we have a simple format

Code:

lb, r, s, msg = data[0] + data[1:33] + data[33:65] + data[65:]
if msg:
...
else:
...

Or tell me what you prefer

That sounds good to me. We want the standardized encoding/formatting, but don't need to all the flexibility in those serializations, since we have a very static/simple system for Bitcoin. So clearsign will be identical to RFC2440 for the message, dash-esc, etc, but the signature will only be 65 bytes in base64. The opaque version will simply be the header & footer, with the the properly-formatted message as you described above, all converted to base64.

Where does crc24 fit into this? Was that implemented and used? I didn't look too closely at where it fit in. Or was it only useful for the OpenPGP-formatted stuff?

jackjack

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1280

May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage

As a Bitcoin signed message will always have the same, fixed format I think we don't need to use packets as they are used to provide flexibility
That would for example lead to:

signature = byte + r + s
sig+msg = byte + r + s + msg

Text rules (dash, etc...) in RFC2440 can (and should imo) be used

That way we have a simple format

Code:

lb, r, s, msg = data[0] + data[1:33] + data[33:65] + data[65:]
if msg:
...
else:
...

Or tell me what you prefer

Topic: [BOUNTY: 2.0 BTC] [CLAIMED] Message Signing in Armory - page 2. (Read 7996 times)