In ECDSA, why is (r,−s mod n) complementary to (r, s)?












3















I am trying to find resources in previous malleability posts, but couldn't find derivations/proofs of this fact or how the exact low-s value is derived. Any pointers would greatly appreciated.










share|improve this question



























    3















    I am trying to find resources in previous malleability posts, but couldn't find derivations/proofs of this fact or how the exact low-s value is derived. Any pointers would greatly appreciated.










    share|improve this question

























      3












      3








      3








      I am trying to find resources in previous malleability posts, but couldn't find derivations/proofs of this fact or how the exact low-s value is derived. Any pointers would greatly appreciated.










      share|improve this question














      I am trying to find resources in previous malleability posts, but couldn't find derivations/proofs of this fact or how the exact low-s value is derived. Any pointers would greatly appreciated.







      ecdsa transaction-malleability






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Jan 5 at 20:45









      James C.James C.

      1,8751214




      1,8751214






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          ECDSA signatures are pairs (r,s) such that r = x(m/sG + r/sP) mod n, where P is the public key and m is the message digest. x() in that equation means "the X coordinate of".



          In that equation, if you substitute s = -s', you get *r = x(m/(-s')*G + r/(-s)P) mod n, or *r = x(-(m/s'*G + r/s'P)).



          However, it is true that for any point Q, x(Q) = x(-Q), as negating a point only affects the Y coordinate. Thus, *r = x(m/s'*G + r/s'P) mod n, or (r,s') is valid signature whenever (r,s) is.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

            – James C.
            Jan 5 at 22:31











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "308"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83408%2fin-ecdsa-why-is-r-%25e2%2588%2592s-mod-n-complementary-to-r-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          ECDSA signatures are pairs (r,s) such that r = x(m/sG + r/sP) mod n, where P is the public key and m is the message digest. x() in that equation means "the X coordinate of".



          In that equation, if you substitute s = -s', you get *r = x(m/(-s')*G + r/(-s)P) mod n, or *r = x(-(m/s'*G + r/s'P)).



          However, it is true that for any point Q, x(Q) = x(-Q), as negating a point only affects the Y coordinate. Thus, *r = x(m/s'*G + r/s'P) mod n, or (r,s') is valid signature whenever (r,s) is.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

            – James C.
            Jan 5 at 22:31
















          3














          ECDSA signatures are pairs (r,s) such that r = x(m/sG + r/sP) mod n, where P is the public key and m is the message digest. x() in that equation means "the X coordinate of".



          In that equation, if you substitute s = -s', you get *r = x(m/(-s')*G + r/(-s)P) mod n, or *r = x(-(m/s'*G + r/s'P)).



          However, it is true that for any point Q, x(Q) = x(-Q), as negating a point only affects the Y coordinate. Thus, *r = x(m/s'*G + r/s'P) mod n, or (r,s') is valid signature whenever (r,s) is.






          share|improve this answer
























          • Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

            – James C.
            Jan 5 at 22:31














          3












          3








          3







          ECDSA signatures are pairs (r,s) such that r = x(m/sG + r/sP) mod n, where P is the public key and m is the message digest. x() in that equation means "the X coordinate of".



          In that equation, if you substitute s = -s', you get *r = x(m/(-s')*G + r/(-s)P) mod n, or *r = x(-(m/s'*G + r/s'P)).



          However, it is true that for any point Q, x(Q) = x(-Q), as negating a point only affects the Y coordinate. Thus, *r = x(m/s'*G + r/s'P) mod n, or (r,s') is valid signature whenever (r,s) is.






          share|improve this answer













          ECDSA signatures are pairs (r,s) such that r = x(m/sG + r/sP) mod n, where P is the public key and m is the message digest. x() in that equation means "the X coordinate of".



          In that equation, if you substitute s = -s', you get *r = x(m/(-s')*G + r/(-s)P) mod n, or *r = x(-(m/s'*G + r/s'P)).



          However, it is true that for any point Q, x(Q) = x(-Q), as negating a point only affects the Y coordinate. Thus, *r = x(m/s'*G + r/s'P) mod n, or (r,s') is valid signature whenever (r,s) is.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 5 at 22:20









          Pieter WuillePieter Wuille

          47.5k399160




          47.5k399160













          • Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

            – James C.
            Jan 5 at 22:31



















          • Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

            – James C.
            Jan 5 at 22:31

















          Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

          – James C.
          Jan 5 at 22:31





          Thank you very much. I understand negating a scalar over ff, but not why that negated scalar * point will result in a point with the same x-coord as scalar * point.

          – James C.
          Jan 5 at 22:31


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f83408%2fin-ecdsa-why-is-r-%25e2%2588%2592s-mod-n-complementary-to-r-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bressuire

          Cabo Verde

          Gyllenstierna