Continues #4694. Again, more important than the optimization, I think the end result is more readable. It could be a little bit nicer by joining SignHash and Sign, but then multisig's performance would be hurt.
Strictly hash what is going to be signed #4695
pull jtimon wants to merge 4 commits into bitcoin:master from jtimon:nohash2 changing 1 files +42 −46-
jtimon commented at 2:13 PM on August 13, 2014: contributor
- laanwj added the label Improvement on Aug 14, 2014
-
- jtimon force-pushed on Aug 20, 2014
- jtimon force-pushed on Aug 27, 2014
-
-
- jtimon force-pushed on Aug 31, 2014
- jtimon force-pushed on Aug 31, 2014
- jtimon force-pushed on Sep 2, 2014
-
- jtimon closed this on Sep 2, 2014
- jtimon reopened this on Sep 8, 2014
- jtimon force-pushed on Sep 8, 2014
-
Don't hash what you're not going to sign 898753401f
-
Refactor SignSignature and higher level Solver 1b5938edc8
-
Inline SignN only use 59bad4514c
-
Strictly hash what is going to be signed (without hurting multisig) 9aaf3b6c02
- jtimon force-pushed on Sep 13, 2014
-
BitcoinPullTester commented at 9:07 PM on September 13, 2014: none
Automatic sanity-testing: PASSED, see http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/p4695_9aaf3b6c02e746d7db17ab260837f8736c99f4f0/ for binaries and test log. This test script verifies pulls every time they are updated. It, however, dies sometimes and fails to test properly. If you are waiting on a test, please check timestamps to verify that the test.log is moving at http://jenkins.bluematt.me/pull-tester/current/ Contact BlueMatt on freenode if something looks broken.
-
jtimon commented at 6:50 AM on September 15, 2014: contributor
I think I've changed my mind, at least on removing SignN. Closing for now.
- jtimon closed this on Sep 15, 2014
- MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021
