RE: Why does steem use this canonical thing instead of strict secp256k1? by fuzzyvest
Viewing a response to: @fuzzyvest/re-rainman-re-faddat-secp256k1-in-steem-doesn-t-adhere-to-standards-20170222t212921030z
beyondbitcoin·@bilthon-83·
0.000 HBDI believe signatures will be different every time and that is expected, since we're dealing with non-deterministic signatures here. Anyways, xeroc'x post over there is how I managed to solve this in graphenej. The relevant part of the code is in here: https://github.com/kenCode-de/graphenej/blob/master/graphenej/src/main/java/de/bitsharesmunich/graphenej/Transaction.java#L142
👍 ubg, fuzzyvest, good-karma, rouketas, finleyexp, irawandedy, johnthehoan, ogochukwu, mestyz, kamidela, michaelnonso, emeka, xeroc, wang, roelandp, cryptojoy.com, revostrike, tamersameeh, stmdxrafi, alohaoy, toyblackhat, rossco99, pheonike, theshell, skapaneas, phenom, bitcoiner, toxichan, professorx, sstefan, tonylondon, pairmike, jamtaylor, blakemiles84, ratel, michaelx, albertogm, raymondspeaks, dirty.hera, gomeravibz, bigsambucca, steemradio, cmorton, nulliusinverba, tracemayer, ianboil, steemnews24, benjiparler, sokal, randyclemens, kyra-kristian, faddat,