Another weird transaction question...

Another weird transaction question...
2014-08-13 18:10 ` Peter Todd
  
From: Richard Moore @ 2014-08-13 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 873 bytes --]

Hey all,

Sorry to keep bugging you all, as I slowly verify the blockchain one transaction after another with my own implementation, but I have found another transaction that is obviously correct (as it is verified by the legit client) that has me seeking clarification.

This multisig output script:

https://blockchain.info/tx-index/12809044/0  (txid: 274f8be3b7b9b1a220285f5f71f61e2691dd04df9d69bb02a8b3b85f91fb1857)

contains a public key:

00f2b7816db49d55d24df7bdffdbc1e203b424e8cd39f5651ab938e5e4a193569e

Are invalid public keys permitted and silently ignored? Or does the 0x00 prefix have some interesting meaning?

Thanks again,

RicMoo


.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º>

Richard Moore ~ Founder
Genetic Mistakes Software inc.
phone: (778) 882-6125
email: ricmoo@geneticmistakes•com
www: http://GeneticMistakes.com


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1792 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-08-13 18:00 [Bitcoin-development] Another weird transaction question Richard Moore

  
From: Peter Todd @ 2014-08-13 18:10 UTC ( / )
  To: Richard Moore, Bitcoin Dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 13 August 2014 11:00:22 GMT-07:00, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo•com> wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>Sorry to keep bugging you all, as I slowly verify the blockchain one
>transaction after another with my own implementation, but I have found
>another transaction that is obviously correct (as it is verified by the
>legit client) that has me seeking clarification.
>
>This multisig output script:
>
>https://blockchain.info/tx-index/12809044/0  (txid:
>274f8be3b7b9b1a220285f5f71f61e2691dd04df9d69bb02a8b3b85f91fb1857)
>
>contains a public key:
>
>00f2b7816db49d55d24df7bdffdbc1e203b424e8cd39f5651ab938e5e4a193569e
>
>Are invalid public keys permitted and silently ignored? Or does the
>0x00 prefix have some interesting meaning?

Have you looked at the Bitcoin Core script test cases yet? You might be surprised at what is allowed. Equally, read the source code! In particular follow the block acceptance logic line by line from start to finish.

In any case, the Bitcoin protocol doesn't care whether or not a public key is valid.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1

iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJT66oXMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhcgKCACT18WjN11SCuX5qyeq
D5zOtGBsAtPMWr8CJuds4gLIkRtxDxPy9cuIMzwLylaC0yvFSIrG6rAIcqqRpkEH
hcJj2IXyTRVr/mxg3qDzphYuwWQAgUzBgbhPsHtl8SvnbzJgEdXCsErGs3eW6JTR
I5OXeMVT8ZKQVJUKCNGdzlH4673Gh6fIzwW1cPLATt486ByCk5YRXC14IGasxnlg
6IWm4r/I6gOAB7FiPCHm60Q2DJOsX+VEFe3U28Zxlx06i0Ij9JYoKbTDu8e12bSB
YFUBwGCbwWr/Xcygg0nWyrEMVk5dcxk/30asF/dEczHRZo9DNUdKt4IAESd+GGC2
P9g4
=e0do
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----