From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1YBZJa-0000eO-7q
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:33:38 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.43])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YBZJZ-0004WV-3R
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:33:38 +0000
Received: from resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.102])
	by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
	id g1Ke1p0042D5gil011L25l; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:20:02 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet
	([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6])
	by resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with comcast
	id g1L11p00F2JF60R011L1U2; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:20:02 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 20:17:52 -0500
Message-ID: <3382316.6TbFyFjyI6@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (Linux/3.16.5-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTdqUxBs3+dMmtZ5dQvxP8MBFgttCdJ9cuvy10LdwAKaYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABETNRtquBWEZZ=jOcWojcgMTpjU5nWP9p74DArLxOXqqQT7og@mail.gmail.com>
	<6E575287-887C-4628-834C-282B67AFAA94@eeqj.com>
	<CABr1YTdqUxBs3+dMmtZ5dQvxP8MBFgttCdJ9cuvy10LdwAKaYQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
	no trust [69.252.207.43 listed in list.dnswl.org]
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YBZJZ-0004WV-3R
Cc: Ruben de Vries <ruben@blocktrail.com>, Jeffrey Paul <jp@eeqj.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] convention/standard for sorting public
	keys for p2sh multisig transactions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 01:33:38 -0000

On Wednesday, 14 January 2015, at 3:53 pm, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> Internally, pubkeys are DER-encoded integers.

I thought pubkeys were represented as raw integers (i.e., they're embedded in Script as a push operation whose payload is the raw bytes of the big-endian representation of the integer). As far as I know, DER encoding is only used for signatures. Am I mistaken?