Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VU8WL-0005NU-Cl for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:10:45 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender) client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co; helo=mail.taplink.co; Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VU8WK-0008LS-Gz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:10:45 +0000 Received: from laptop-air ([192.168.168.135]) by mail.taplink.co ; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 21:11:57 -0700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----------R7jdScXRqxdHKzY4Fcf7Rp To: "Bitcoin Dev" References: Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:10:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Jeremy Spilman" Organization: TapLink Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) oclient: 192.168.168.135#jeremy@taplink.co#465 X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP URI: Uses a dotted-decimal IP address in URL 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: 193.28.235.60] X-Headers-End: 1VU8WK-0008LS-Gz Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.5 with libsecp256k1 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:10:45 -0000 ------------R7jdScXRqxdHKzY4Fcf7Rp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can this be combined with the ideas on deterministic signing to show matching signatures with OpenSSL's implementation? Not sure if that's worth much, since we would just be testing needles in a very large haystack, but better than nothing? On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:50:30 -0700, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > https://github.com/sipa/secp256k1 > sipa's secp256k1, optimized ecdsa, significantly faster than openssl > > Today someone in #bitcoin-dev asked for Bitcoin 0.8.5 with sipa's > secp256k1. Litecoin has been shipping test builds with secp256k1 for > several months >now so it was a simple matter to throw together a branch > of Bitcoin 0.8.5 with secp256k1. > > https://github.com/wtogami/bitcoin/commits/btc-0.8.5-secp256k1 > This branch should theoretically work for Linux, win32 gitian and mac > builds. These commits are rather ugly because it was thrown together > just to make >it build with the old 0.8 makefiles without intent for > production code merge. cfields is working on autotoolizing it as one of > the prerequisites prior to >inclusion into bitcoin master where it will > be an option disabled by default. > > http://193.28.235.60/~warren/bitcoin-0.8.5-secp256k1/ > Untested win32 gitian build. Build your own Linux or Mac builds if you > want to test it. Not recommended for production wallet or mining uses. > > Warren ------------R7jdScXRqxdHKzY4Fcf7Rp Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=----------R7jdScXRqxdHKz2UT0XW6U ------------R7jdScXRqxdHKz2UT0XW6U Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Can this be combined with the ideas on deterministic signing = to show matching signatures with OpenSSL's implementation?
Not sure if that's worth much, since we would just be testin= g needles in a very large haystack, but better than nothing?
<= br>
On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:50:30 -0700, Warren Togami Jr. <= wtogami@gmail.com> wrote:

sipa's secp256k1, optimized ec= dsa, significantly faster than openssl

Today someone in #bitcoin-dev asked for Bitcoin 0.8.5 with sipa's secp25= 6k1.  Litecoin has been shipping test builds with secp256k1 for sev= eral months now so it was a simple matter to throw together a branch of = Bitcoin 0.8.5 with secp256k1.

https://github.com/wtogami/bitcoin/commits/btc-0.8.5-s= ecp256k1
This branch should theoretically work for Linux, win32 = gitian and mac builds.  These commits are rather ugly because it wa= s thrown together just to make it build with the old 0.8 makefiles witho= ut intent for production code merge. cfields is working on autotoolizing= it as one of the prerequisites prior to inclusion into bitcoin master w= here it will be an option disabled by default.

Untested win32 gitian build.  Build your own Linux or= Mac builds if you want to test it.  Not recommended for production= wallet or mining uses.

Warren



------------R7jdScXRqxdHKz2UT0XW6U-- ------------R7jdScXRqxdHKzY4Fcf7Rp--