Is this “warning for prostitutes” sign actually a real, official sign in Italy?

While browsing to verify what “puta” meant, as I kept hearing it in Spanish, I found this bizarre photo:,_Province_of_Treviso,_Italy_-_panoramio.jpg

I tried to find the address “31021 Mogliano Veneto, Province of Treviso, Italy” on Google Maps Street View, to no luck.

It has no description beyond “Sign” in the article, which makes no sense.

Is this a fake sign? A joke? Photo manipulation? What would be the purpose of such a sign? And why is it (apparently) in Italy if they were talking about Spanish words?

signature – Do you sign only the previous output of transaction?

The sighash type conditions what is part of the digest which is eventually signed for the transaction to be valid.

Some sighash types allow to either include (commit to) part –or none– of the outputs of the transaction in the digest. Using these far less common sighash types introduce some malleability for a transaction, which usually allow more flexibility when different parties create a single transaction.
You almost always want to use SIGHASH_ALL and you anyway should append a SIGHASH_ALL signature to an input before broadcasting a transaction.

Regarding your question and to sum up, you always sign the current transaction and append this signature to the witness or the scriptSig. This signature can be conditioned using different sighash types.

For reference, you can see the wiki page on OP_CHECKSIG (it only covers the legacy transaction format, though).

secp256k1 – In compressed public keys, is the 2 or 3 the parity or the sign?

According to, points are encoded in compressed format as:

  • 0x02 + X coordinate: implicit Y coordinate is even
  • 0x03 + X coordinate: implicit Y coordinate is odd

You can call this parity or sign – it doesn’t matter; they’re the same thing in a finite field (and arguably, both are inaccurate). As the coordinates are numbers modulo an odd prime p (the field size; p = 2256 – 232 – 977 for the secp256k1 curve used in Bitcoin), -x and p-x are the same coordinate. One of these will always be odd, and the other will be even. One of them will be negative and the other will be positive.

The convention is that “even” refers to the coordinate which manifests as an even number when seen as an integer in the range (0..p-1), and “odd” the opposite. This is an arbitrary choice, as another range could be chosen (such as (-(p-1)/2..(p-1)/2)) in which different coordinates would be seen as even or odd.

Yet, it helps distinguish. If (x,y) satisfies y2 = x3 + 7 mod p, so does (x,y) = (x,p-y). To identify the solution, the criterion of “even/odd when restricted to (0..x-1)” is used in practice.

Closed – Sign up for 75 BMF and 10.000 BTC satoshi from them. | Proxies-free

EarnBitcoin is a new faucet, they give us a 10k satoshi one-time bonus for sign-up.
I will pay 70 BMF if you do it with my link.

1. Sign-up here
2. Verify your email address
3. Make a daily claim
4. Post your proof here or dm me

The offer is limited, grab your deal. Minimum withdraw is low and easily accessible, the site is brand new and is paying.
Help me with this one, guys!

Restrict CA to issue certficates for one domain or to be able to sign just one server certificate

I have a server and I want my iPhone to connect to it securely. However, I cannot just install the self-signed server certificate on my iPhone. When I install the profile (that’s what they call the certificate), it says “Not verified”.

Normally, you would go to CA Trust settings and enable full trust for the certificate. BUT I deliberately made the certificate with critical,CA:false constraint. That’s the reason it does not show in the CA Trust settings.

Why did I do it — I just need to install the single certificate and I don’t want to totally compromise my iPhone security, if my CA credentials got stolen.

Do this have a solution? iOS probably requires a CA to trust a certificate, but I don’t want a possibility to create certificates at all (beside the one), or at least for another domains.

One potential “solution” might be to create the CA, sign the server certificate and then delete the CA key, as it would not be needed and would live for a shorter time (lower chance to get stolen).

However, people except me wouldn’t be stoked to install it. (I don’t want to buy a certificate as its a home project and I don’t even have a domain name, just the IP address.)

The certificate complies with apple’s current requirements for server certificates. (

hash – Sign records in a database

I have a table in my database where I store records to be processed later (basically orders that need to be invoiced or something similar, but this is not the important part).

Since this software runs on-premises, pro-users controls the database and they’re able to insert records directly into it. They usually do this to make my system process records in an unsupported way. Obviously, this leads me to problems that I often need to deal: inconsistency, invalid domain, missing fields, etc.

To avoid this problem, I’d like to know what are my options to “sign records”, that is, identify the records generated by my system in a way that others can not reproduce.

Several approaches came to my mind when I think in this problem:

  • Create some undocumented record hash (that can be reverse engineered);
  • Use a digital certificate to sign records (where to store the digital certificate? the system runs offline on-premises);
  • Use some kind of blockchain approach: linking a record with the previous + some proof of work (maybe too hard to implement and error prone).

Are there other approaches I am not considering? If not, between the ones I listed, is there an approach I should stick/avoid?