Okay Og was right, the first one was wrong not verified. So I retest it again and it works from your previous quotes.
So are my entitled to be rewarded or nothing for me 😆
Why don't you combine
your two posts above which are only about five minutes apart?
Have you managed to verify your first signature yourself?
Don't you intend to try again checking your first signature error?
It could be that the cause of the error is in the signature coding, as in the following cases:
why don't people read what was said in other comments before replying :D
the ONLY problem here is the encoding of the signature that when it generates r and s, r is 32 bytes, s is 31 bytes. it doesn't pad s so it ends up with a 64 (1+32+31) byte signature instead of 65 (1+32+(1+31)).
if you change that, the signature becomes valid. try the following and see for yourself:
IFkS40AxIuRGDN/vnjwavfV6R00h3MKArtDB7tpBbnqIADHOlkhiEJv8JuJTeyVW2Oo23jH9u8fFTqiOms4MM9k=
, at least not the new versions. i DID test it with my own key and brute forced a signature with a smaller r or s and it DID generate the right signature encoding.
3. the signature I get: IFkS40AxIuRGDN/vnjwavfV6R00h3MKArtDB7tpBbnqIMc6WSGIQm/wm4lN7JVbY6jbeMf27x8VOqI6azgwz2Q==
your signature length is
invalid, it should have been 65 bytes but what you posted here is only 64 bytes which means it is missing 1 byte.
this should not have happened, i can't see any bugs that could lead to this either. are you sure that you have not modified the signature yourself?
From this as you said verified but let og check and very too let us know is from his end
Do you doubt OgNasty's ability to verify Signed messages?
