You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Why does steem use this canonical thing instead of strict secp256k1?

in #beyondbitcoin • 8 years ago
8 years ago in #beyondbitcoin by
$7.32
  • Past Payouts $7.32, 0.00 TRX
  • - Author $7.27, 0.00 TRX
  • - Curators $0.05, 0.00 TRX
7 votes
Reply 4
Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago (edited)

    To be clear: I was wrong. I was also faced with something that looked exactly like a critical flaw in security.

    More rotten eggs, more, throw more of them!

    Here are your choices as I see them:

    1. Docs - This will enable you to make legit claims about your software's functionality. Today, most dismiss graphene out of hand because of its lack of docs. Don't believe me? I've been in the room and watched it happen. (And I was on the "pro-graphene" side in that particular room.)

    2. Keep throwin them eggs.

    Those who do number one don't need to do number two.

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       7 years ago 

      Still not jumping to conclusions, but ... yeah.

      https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/1944

      We should loosen the restriction in a HF. Because valid FC signatures are a subset of BIP-0062, after the hardfork we can clean up signature verification code and use BIP-0062 for historical verification.

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         4 years ago (edited)

        Nothing but gratitude for your making this connection for me.

        I was having a really hard time in my life when I made this post, and since around Fall of 2017, I just figured I was dead wrong about the whole thing.

        Turns out that I was very, very rude/nasty.......

        But correct.

        Things have gotten better for me and I actively strive to be both polite and correct. Hopeful.

        $0.00
          Reply