You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Instantiating two private keys using e.g. \x00\xff and \xff as the secret should not create different (property wise, not instance wise) private keys in the context of a high-level interface.
I understand that the underlying functions behave differently but on a high level I'd expect the public key derivation sG to be the same since the integer value of s is the same no matter how many leading zeros the secret bytes have.
Private keys are often serialized with a 0x00 leading zero byte padding, it would be nice to just pass this to PrivateKey() instead of having to strip that.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Instantiating two private keys using e.g.
\x00\xff
and\xff
as the secret should not create different (property wise, not instance wise) private keys in the context of a high-level interface.I understand that the underlying functions behave differently but on a high level I'd expect the public key derivation
sG
to be the same since the integer value ofs
is the same no matter how many leading zeros the secret bytes have.Private keys are often serialized with a
0x00
leading zero byte padding, it would be nice to just pass this toPrivateKey()
instead of having to strip that.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: