📅 Original date posted:2022-08-05
📝 Original message:On Friday 05 August 2022 04:05:56 Ali Sherief wrote:
> Yeah, I have a specific reason to advance this first (emphasis on the word
> first).
>
> I briefly mentioned in the BIP that BIP322 has superior message
> verification capabilities. This is true, but it suffers from the drawback
> that wallets are not using it.
Likely because it is a draft and incomplete.
> Message signatures are highly relied upon in some places (just to name a
> few, at many mining pools e.g. Slushpool, and the Bitcointalk forum),
I'm not aware of any using the current message signatures _correctly_.
Note they are not useful for proving that you sent a transaction, nor have the
ability to send a transaction or access to bitcoins.
> This BIP is kind of like a "bumper car", in that it forces compliance with
> previous BIPs that extend the message signing format, in particular BIP137.
BIPs can't force anything, they're just documentation.
IMO, there is no benefit to an additional message signing standard, especially
one that doesn't address the problems with the current standard or (at
present) BIP322.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 23:12:30
in reply to nevent1q…4hcl
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 23:12:30Event JSON
{
"id": "a4a60b9f1c41b8ca8a5056c83f6861e8d09b57f2c5a2d3123c83456b93f1dede",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686179550,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fb0c51c47fb0dc7c36668ecc3d86fd399320d3c6e12d870c36c10551b62e25cc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"800c56de08676c578e5263293411980b550df949e898a9485d8e9e294b3fc745",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"300ba94cc910da0a8903ca9e40487283545661c726c81fd5942e11a0683ad617"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-08-05\n📝 Original message:On Friday 05 August 2022 04:05:56 Ali Sherief wrote:\n\u003e Yeah, I have a specific reason to advance this first (emphasis on the word\n\u003e first).\n\u003e\n\u003e I briefly mentioned in the BIP that BIP322 has superior message\n\u003e verification capabilities. This is true, but it suffers from the drawback\n\u003e that wallets are not using it.\n\nLikely because it is a draft and incomplete.\n\n\u003e Message signatures are highly relied upon in some places (just to name a\n\u003e few, at many mining pools e.g. Slushpool, and the Bitcointalk forum), \n\nI'm not aware of any using the current message signatures _correctly_.\nNote they are not useful for proving that you sent a transaction, nor have the \nability to send a transaction or access to bitcoins.\n\n\u003e This BIP is kind of like a \"bumper car\", in that it forces compliance with\n\u003e previous BIPs that extend the message signing format, in particular BIP137.\n\nBIPs can't force anything, they're just documentation.\n\nIMO, there is no benefit to an additional message signing standard, especially \none that doesn't address the problems with the current standard or (at \npresent) BIP322.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "4c16775398e4d45033e623aa727637843a222f72c4da50a92f54ceb79021fd1df5e27ba1825f243a32eda0d1ac457acd663ed9932fbbdda2c5ae7c7e76d2553a"
}