Author

Topic: why is this nonstandard (Read 965 times)

hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1030
bits of proof
December 10, 2013, 11:18:03 AM
#7
The signature is invalid, but because I do not seem to compute the right hash to sign.

Everything was correct, only the order of signatures did not match the order of public keys   Shocked
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
December 09, 2013, 01:33:01 PM
#6
I guess "what needs to be signed" is the ever lasting bitcoin question Smiley
I believe this took me the most effort to implement tx sign/verify in my client - there is no decent documentation on this.
The best you can do is to reverse engineer the satoshi's implementation.
Or or some other implementation that works... w.g. have a look at the function SignatureHash() here: (starts at line 102)
https://github.com/piotrnar/gocoin/blob/master/btc/tx.go

hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1030
bits of proof
December 09, 2013, 07:50:20 AM
#5
Here is a more simple example, that is now considered standard, but invalid in signature
Code:
0100000001a5d11e3f73a7fd1072404333f9f45f37442066fd03a2fb212e0e1dbcb08c0bee00000000fdfe0000483045022100ff19f97eb58361365b8bd7ea4a14c7f07a8e4e63f09b464891dab97f04b44cd8022006b3c152bf25b2026072b7268feda8f45105209060064b72fc7972fbfa1b1f3f01483045022035eac71a8981e9119752199bb880f07321895fe441581da5e018d0afad694130022100e3670c62ca8fb2ff86aa5ac9818fb99615b42d0a74f1ce113b069521305f957e014c695221031d11db38972b712a9fe1fc023577c7ae3ddb4a3004187d41c45121eecfdbb5b7210207ec36911b6ad2382860d32989c7b8728e9489d7bbc94a6b5509ef0029be128821024ea9fac06f666a4adc3fc1357b7bec1fd0bdece2b9d08579226a8ebde53058e453aeffffffff0180380100000000001976a914c9b99cddf847d10685a4fabaa0baf505f7c3dfab88ac00000000

This is the parse from brainwallet.org:
Code:
{
    "hash": "9a9c346e13138b700f76f95168687dcbd59caae73c2bbd236c395af0ba12f4ed",
    "ver": 1,
    "vin_sz": 1,
    "vout_sz": 1,
    "lock_time": 0,
    "size": 341,
    "in": [
        {
            "prev_out": {
                "hash": "ee0b8cb0bc1d0e2e21fba203fd662044375ff4f93343407210fda7733f1ed1a5",
                "n": 0
            },
            "scriptSig": "OP_FALSE 3045022100ff19f97eb58361365b8bd7ea4a14c7f07a8e4e63f09b464891dab97f04b44cd8022006b3c152bf25b2026072b7268feda8f45105209060064b72fc7972fbfa1b1f3f01 3045022035eac71a8981e9119752199bb880f07321895fe441581da5e018d0afad694130022100e3670c62ca8fb2ff86aa5ac9818fb99615b42d0a74f1ce113b069521305f957e01 5221031d11db38972b712a9fe1fc023577c7ae3ddb4a3004187d41c45121eecfdbb5b7210207ec36911b6ad2382860d32989c7b8728e9489d7bbc94a6b5509ef0029be128821024ea9fac06f666a4adc3fc1357b7bec1fd0bdece2b9d08579226a8ebde53058e453ae",
            "sequence": 4294967295
        }
    ],
    "out": [
        {
            "value": "0.00080000",
            "scriptPubKey": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 c9b99cddf847d10685a4fabaa0baf505f7c3dfab OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG"
        }
    ]
}

The signature is invalid, but because I do not seem to compute the right hash to sign.

I use the redemption script in place of scriptPubScript but that is not yet sufficient...
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1030
bits of proof
December 09, 2013, 07:46:17 AM
#4
Yes, the inputs are P2SH and one output is also P2SH.

The reason it was not considered standard as satoshi expects a 2 out of 3 signature to be exactly: (thanks to Gavin to point this out)
OP_0 OP_2   OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

while I had
OP_0 OP_0 OP_2   OP_3 OP_CHECKMULTISIG

the first OP_0 is to deal with a known satoshi bug, the second OP_0 being the placeholder for missing signature. This is valid in the script rules, but unfortunatelly not for the isStandard check.

So this is fixed now.

I am now fighting to figure what exactly needs to be hashed for the signature. BIP16 only says redemption script in place of the scriptPub,
but that does not yet cut it...
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
December 09, 2013, 07:19:12 AM
#3
at the other hand, it seems that both the sigScript are inconsistent - so that is probably the reason.

Code:
01000000 - version
02 - two inputs

201ac3bea02ec2c3dcc86b123e5e0c53290e58ea5f7bf47154afbaec4f25c007-00000000 - 1st input txid-vout
fd:fe00 - length of sigScript 0xfe
00 - push null
00 - push null
47 - push 0x47 bytes:
 3044022022240b411509a86d9d092d0d
 fab636e981d36a19a5d3d20017f77017
 3a3170ac02204fa7276400f3edea34b4
 9edc9b0363e1be1ecdb017e8c74ba3ce
 56119715e2df01
48 - push 0x48 bytes:
 304502205cd3a7972a7a4253b24b5607
 a18d60bdbc8d749de03ae1e68452ce5b
 0b559e75022100d929fb1cbf6191be76
 f379d4a24f6c5e89a58a4c45c437f3fe
 af27597688f33b01
4c - push 0x4c bytes:
 695221031d11db38972b712a9fe1fc02
 3577c7ae3ddb4a3004187d41c45121ee
 cfdbb5b7210207ec36911b6ad2382860
 d32989c7b8728e9489d7bbc94a6b5509
 ef0029be128821024ea9fac0
6f - push 0x6f bytes:
 666a4adc3fc1357b7bec1fd0bdece2b9
 d08579226a8ebde53058e453ae
 [... where is the rest of the 0x6f bytes???]
ffffffff - sequence

2312503f2491a2a97fcd775f11e108a540a5528b5d4dee7a3c68ae4add01dab3-00000000 - 2nd input txid-vout
fd:0101 - length of sigScript 0x101
00 - push null
00 - push null
49 - push 0x49 bytes:
 30460221009f705343b234ce23814fb2
 487468bada931a87038194010dcb897e
 5fea48926e02210088e5fba6c25660fa
 dc3f45f62590dbbf61eda188b42ecfca
 a3f429405d31921e01
49 - push 0x49 bytes:
 30460221008ecf4cb533f31f160dcf14
 75fbfdb08768e8d89d058c61a3416ac6
 9f7dda73e1022100829e47757b481413
 790846bb8c4f35ced12a52169eb53f3c
 ecb39eaa618af09501
4c - push 0x4c bytes:
 695221031d11db38972b712a9fe1fc02
 3577c7ae3ddb4a3004187d41c45121ee
 cfdbb5b7210207ec36911b6ad2382860
 d32989c7b8728e9489d7bbc94a6b5509
 ef0029be128821024ea9fac06f666a4a
 dc3fc1357b7bec1fd0bdece2b9d08579
 226a8ebde53058e453ae
 [... seems 2 bytes are missing here as well]
ffffffff - sequence

02 - 2 outputs
a086010000000000 - value 1
19:76a914c9b99cddf847d10685a4fabaa0baf505f7c3dfab88ac - out script 1

7011010000000000 - value 2
17:a914b1ce99298d5f07364b57b1e5c9cc00be0b04a95487 - out script 1

00000000 - lock time
legendary
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1356
aka tonikt
December 09, 2013, 06:56:51 AM
#2
I think it's because the output script from the second output is kind of weird:

Code:
a914b1ce99298d5f07364b57b1e5c9cc00be0b04a95487
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1030
bits of proof
December 09, 2013, 05:23:24 AM
#1
Anybody could give me a hint why satoshi says the below transaction would be:

ERROR: CTxMemPool::accept() : nonstandard transaction input

As far as I see it only uses PUSH operators in scriptSig.

Code:
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
Jump to: