## multi signature – P2SH address as a product of public keys

Assuming the multisig 2 of 3, if I do have extended public keys (xpub) for all 3 cosigners (with proper derivations), can I somewhat get the result address (P2SH)? How to calculate the “script” out of these public keys?

Would be cool to have scheme for doing so or a code/pseudocode in python if possible.

## multi signature – Is this scheme for multisig audit of Trezor + Coldcard ok?

My plan is to make a multisig between coldcard and trezor. I want to audit and verify that I indeed own the 2 keys of these wallets, using a raspberry pi zero (no wifi/bluetooth by definition) on a very old HDMI tv with no internet either, and using a virtual keyboard and simply a mouse on the pi zero.

These are the possible risks I want to mitigate:

To eliminate the risk of the trezor generating a private key I don’t own, I’m gonna put its key on the raspberry pi zero and see that it generates the same master pubkey and shown in trezor. This proves I own this key, but it might be a kew that someone already owns. No problem, that’s why I’m doing multisig.

On the coldcard, I’ll generate a seed using dices, and then verify on the raspberry pi that those dice rolls indeed generate the private key shown by coldcard. This proves that I own a private key that no one owns, because it was generated using dices.

Now that I have 2 private keys that I own, and at least one of them I’m the only owner, I can create a multisig wallet on Ethereum or maybe BlueWallet. I’ll annotate the first 10 addresses generated by the software wallet, and verify if they match on the coldcard and on the trezor. If the 3 show the same 10 set of addresses, I can consider these addresses safe for receiving Bitcoin.

I’ll then receive some Bitcoin on one address, erase both wallets, restore them with the private keys, and then try to spend this Bitcoin, just to make sure I really owned the coins.

What are the possible problems I can encounter? Am I forgetting something important?

PS: I know that if the trezor has a malicious random number generator and it creates a private key that not only myself own, this is a privacy leak, but not a problem. And it’s a privacy leak only when I spend from this address, revealing the public key on the blockchain.

I also plan to use just PBST air-gapped transactions on Coldcard, and a trusted computer to broadcast.

## spells – What is the mechanic of the check when using detect magic, Greater to identify magical signature?

Detect magic, greater says:

You can recognize this signature if you succeed at a Spellcraft check when later identifying a spell to determine whether or not that spell was cast by the same individual.

I am confused what is the mechanic for the DC and other functions for identifying spells signature features:

• isn’t it supposed to be a knowledge (arcana) to recognize spells currently in effect?
• is the DC calculated using spellcraft skill’s “identify spell as it being cast” math or the one presented previously on the spell regarding “identify last spell cast by creature” effect of the spell?

## lo.logic – Are there structures in a finite signature that are recursively categorically axiomatizable in SOL but not finitely categorically axiomatizable?

Recall that a structure $$mathcal{M} = langle M, I^sigma_M rangle$$ in a signature $$sigma$$ is categorically axiomatized by a second-order theory $$T$$ when, for any $$sigma$$-structure $$mathcal{N} = langle N, I^sigma_N rangle$$, $$langle N, mathcal{P}(N), I^sigma_N rangle vDash T$$ just in case $$mathcal{N}$$ is isomorphic to $$mathcal{M}$$.

It is fairly easy to find a structure in a finite signature that is categorically second-order axiomatizable but not finitely categorically second-order axiomatizable. Add a single function symbol $$f$$ to the language of second-order arithmetic, and choose a non-second-order-definable $$zeta: mathbb{N} rightarrow mathbb{N}$$. Then consider the theory $$T$$ that adds to the axioms of second-order arithmetic ($$mathsf{Z}^2$$) the sentence $$f(bar{n}) = overline{zeta(n)}$$ for each natural number $$n$$, where $$bar{m}$$ is the canonical numeral for $$m$$. (I owe the idea for this example to Andrew Bacon.)

This theory $$T$$, however, is not recursively axiomatizable. Is there a structure in a finite signature that has a recursive categorical second-order axiomatization but no finite categorical second-order axiomatization?

I believe that it is possible to find a recursively axiomatizable second-order theory $$T$$ whose spectrum (i.e., the set $${kappa in mathsf{Card}: exists mathcal{M} (mathcal{M} vDash T$$ and $$vert mathscr{M} vert = kappa)}$$) is shared by no finitely axiomatizable second-order theory, using partial truth predicates. (Consider the theory with $$mathsf{Z}^2$$ relativized to some predicate $$N$$ and $${$$“The cardinality of the non-$$N$$s is not $$Sigma^1_n$$-characterizable”$$: n in omega}$$.) But I cannot see how to turn this into a categorical theory.

## digital signature – Licensing application approach

I develop an app and was able to gather some clients, the next step in the application backlog is a Licensing module.

I used and modified some code that helped me in the matter and was able to accomplish a simple licensing system. Although I master some concepts of software development, I know security is not there yet.

The licensing module does the following:

1. Generate a license (`License.lic`) signed with a private key. The `.lic` file is and Xml with attributes, an expire date and the signature.
2. Distribute the application with a license and the public key.
3. The application periodically checks if the license is expired but first checks the integrity of the license with the signature and the public key.

I understand no system is perfect and its hard licensing system is bullet proof. But this approach raises some questions.

• Should I encrypt the `.lic` file?
• Should I generate a key pair per license?
• Is it safe to ship the public key with the product?
• Is this a good approach at all?

## directx – Compile shader and root signature of a ray tracing shader into a single binary using DXC

I’m new to DXR, so please

If I got it right, when we want to compile a ray tracing shader using the DirectX Shader Compiler, we need to specify `lib_6_*` as the target profile.

Now assume I’ve got a HLSL file containing a single ray generation shader `RayGen` whose root signature is specified by a RootSignature attribute of the form

``````#define MyRS "RootFlags(LOCAL_ROOT_SIGNATURE),"
"DescriptorTable("
"UAV(u0, numDescriptors = 1),"
"SRV(t0, numDescriptors = 1))"
(rootsignature(MyRS))
void RayGen() {}
``````

Using `IDxcCompiler::Compile`, I’m able to compile both the shader itself using the target profile `lib_6_3` and the root signature using the target profile `rootsig_1_1`, but if I got it right it’s not possible to invoke `IDxcCompiler::Compile` such that the created `IDxcBlob` contains both the shader and the root signature. (I’ve tried to add the argument `-rootsig-define MyRS` to the call for the compilation of the shader, but it seems to me that the compiler expects the root signature specified in this way to be a global root signature.)

So, I end up with two `IDxcBlob`‘s. Is there any possibility to “merge” them into a single one which can later be used to specify the shader as well in a call of `ID3D12Device5::CreateRootSignature`?

## WP E-Signature Nulled – Digital Signature for WordPress | NulledTeam UnderGround

### Get Documents Signed with WordPress​

You’re here because you want more out of eSignatures. WPESignature is an easy-to-use, reliable WordPress plugin that gives you the eSignature automation tools you need to protect your business (while saving you a ton of money and time).

Constructor
Our easy-to-use contract builder allows you to create beautiful legally binding contracts from your WordPress site…

.(tagsToTranslate)xenforo nulled(t)nulled(t)whmcs nulled(t)vbulletin nulled(t)whmcs themes nulled(t)whmcs modules nulled(t)whmcs template nulled(t)nulled forum(t)best nulled scripts site(t)whmcs templates nulled(t)phpfox nulled(t)nulled script(t)xenforo 2 nulled(t)best nulled sites(t)xenforo nulled themes(t)whmcs nulled(t)nulled scripts(t)vbulletin 5 nulled(t)whmcs addons nulled(t)arrowchat nulled(t)cs-cart nulled(t)xfilesharing pro nulled(t)nulled script forum(t)cs cart nulled(t)nulled sites(t)blesta nulled

## Windows 10 unique signature – Server Fault

I’m intending to use a combination of a Windows 10 unique signature and account to identify my app’ user so that they cannot use multiple account on a same Windows installation even when they remove everything from my app and reinstall.

Is there a signature of Windows 10 that will CHANGE only after reinstall windows?

I have read many threads that suggest using the MachineGUID registry, but this value can be changed by user. Are there any other cannot be changed by user?

## digital signature – Understanding public key cryptography example

Interesting premise.

Q : “Is the ad encrypted with his private key …”
A : no, I don’t believe so

Edit – To clarify, I entertained the possibility that the author meant to say “private key” in item #4, but once you consider the subsequent paragraph in the source (excerpt below), I don’t think the ciphertext that describes the crime in advance is encrypted with public-key cryptography. I reckon the author’s protagonist is using the same bytes that are in the public key as the key for a symmetric cipher. (In this case, `KDF` could potentially be HKDF, PBKDF2, Argon2, scrypt, or even a keyed hash-digest.) eg.

``````broker_pk = PUBLIC_KEY( secret_key )
ciphDetailsOfCrime = E( KDF(broker_pk) , EvilPlanToMakeCelebsEvenMoreFamous )
``````
``````eph_cli_pk = PUBLIC_KEY( ephemeral_client_secret_key )
kRequestForQuote = DH_or_ECDH( broker_pk , ephemeral_client_secret_key )
ciphRFQ = E( kRequestForQuote , DetailsOfNewTarget )
msg = eph_cli_pk || ciphRFQ
``````

(This is a contrived example that shouldn’t be used, especially if conspiring to commit murder and/ or acts of terrorism.) My original answer continues …

It may be that the author meant to say “private key” in list item #4, however, I suspect the author is thinking about using the public key, posted on billboards, as a symmetric key (or password to be used in some key derivation function – aka. KDF) to decrypt the prior description of the heinously foul act of murdering film celebrities en masse

The paragraph that follows is:

“You have now made sure that everyone in the world has, or can get, your public key – and knows that it belongs to an organization willing and able to kill people. Once you have taken steps to tell people how to post messages where you can read them, everyone in the world will know how to send you messages that nobody else can read and how to identify messages that can only have come from you. You are now in business as a middleman selling the services of hit men. Actual assassinations still have to take place in realspace, so being a hit man still has risks. But the problem of locating a hit man – when you are not yourself a regular participant in illegal markets – has been solved.”