Should anyone care, I use the following. Saves you from needing a managed C++ project:
It's probably a little bit slower when signing a transaction because of the pinvokes when looping to find a correct nonce, but other than that, it's pure C# instead of managed C++.
Edit: actually, now that I looked at the code a bit closer, this is just as fast, if not faster than the managed C++ version, since it's calling managed and unmanaged code in the loop, so it needs to do a pinvoke in the loop too.
Managed C++ is a fickle beast, you never know where it goes managed or native (those transitions are murder). At least with the code above, you know for certain when it happens.
Code:
...
It's probably a little bit slower when signing a transaction because of the pinvokes when looping to find a correct nonce, but other than that, it's pure C# instead of managed C++.
Edit: actually, now that I looked at the code a bit closer, this is just as fast, if not faster than the managed C++ version, since it's calling managed and unmanaged code in the loop, so it needs to do a pinvoke in the loop too.
Managed C++ is a fickle beast, you never know where it goes managed or native (those transitions are murder). At least with the code above, you know for certain when it happens.
Every call into one of the C++ methods I provided does 1 native call, so there's 1 transition per call.... unless you count a call into the RNG. Same with the p/invoke code you posted.
Your p/invoke is awesome
It'll work just as good as my library. Just be careful. I made the C++ library so that I could write "guard" code around the calls. ie: make sure keys/signatures/messages are the right length (if not, they cause access violations), handle the nonce so I don't screw it up elsewhere, etc. If you don't need all that junk, then cool 