Timeline for signrawtransaction hex
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2016 at 11:20 | comment | added | hrobeers | Edited the answer for clarity. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 11:19 | history | edited | hrobeers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 59 characters in body
|
| Sep 22, 2016 at 12:39 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | Well, it is not, and assuming that it is may cause problems. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 12:03 | comment | added | hrobeers | I agree, but his question was whether the raw transaction string is unique. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 11:24 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | That's a very strange definition for unique. In digital signature systems, a unique signature usually refers to the property that even with access to the private key, you cannot construct more than one valid signature for a given message. As said, ECDSA is not unique (not even with RFC6979, and the assumption that it would be has led to breaks in some cryptosystems). | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 7:40 | comment | added | hrobeers | Interesting, did not know about the nonce in ECDSA signatures. So still the output can only be recreated using the same keys, without access to the keys, it is impossible to recreate the same output so in that sense it is unique. But like you said you can have multiple versions of the fully signed transaction. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 21:19 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | ECDSA signatures are never unique. The owner of a transaction can just sign again with a different nonce, and an equally valid signature would appear. Worse, he can always create a completely different transaction, which doublespends the money. | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 15:11 | review | Late answers | |||
| Sep 21, 2016 at 15:28 | |||||
| Sep 21, 2016 at 14:54 | history | answered | hrobeers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |