📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15
📝 Original message:On Thursday 15 March 2018 7:36:48 AM Karl Johan Alm wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Ideally, it should support not only just "proof I receive at this
> > address", but also "proof of funds" (as a separate feature) since this
> > is a popular misuse of the current message signing (which doesn't
> > actually prove funds at all). To do this, it needs to be capable of
> > signing for multiple inputs.
>
> Re-reading this, I think what you mean is it should be possible to
> create a proof for (a) specific UTXO(s), hence "inputs". That sounds
> pretty useful, yeah!
Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as
be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are
available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession
of funds, only that you receive funds.
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:11:14
in reply to nevent1q…gyt0
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 18:11:14Event JSON
{
"id": "36c247bacfe968959faefbdc561ee1eb03376d321846854146e1f27e83272344",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686161474,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fde6d8b8cd384fa838810364bd9a6edd18aea9246ae8127a644187087642ae18",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fcdf6487a501ed89c8bd2c3c2b926bd717098750deb9bcc146b792d883828714",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cf98d015f410ea690e93370543fcb2c3129303ca3921fd6d463206f557722518"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2018-03-15\n📝 Original message:On Thursday 15 March 2018 7:36:48 AM Karl Johan Alm wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Ideally, it should support not only just \"proof I receive at this\n\u003e \u003e address\", but also \"proof of funds\" (as a separate feature) since this\n\u003e \u003e is a popular misuse of the current message signing (which doesn't\n\u003e \u003e actually prove funds at all). To do this, it needs to be capable of\n\u003e \u003e signing for multiple inputs.\n\u003e \n\u003e Re-reading this, I think what you mean is it should be possible to\n\u003e create a proof for (a) specific UTXO(s), hence \"inputs\". That sounds\n\u003e pretty useful, yeah!\n\nNot necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as \nbe impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are \navailable. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession \nof funds, only that you receive funds.",
"sig": "c83cb828b8eb65afd738f87a46a292081ea8ca5b0e7c66f250469473a0f485fccdc124dcafc9e4a722187deddc62e35642fdddfc87df34b82dfd95d0593e769c"
}