š
Original date posted:2017-12-21
š Original message:Thank you... I've updated.
> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.
Fair enough... I still think there are those who would still like an
existing sign/verify BIP to reference.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 December 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/
> bip-0xyz.mediawiki
>
> It's not even correct... Your first "verify message" step is not possible;
> you
> can't get a public key from an address.
>
> What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key
> recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that
> and
> comparing it to the address provided.
>
> > Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been
> > published in a BIP. My proposal is simply to provide a reference point
> for
> > future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.
>
> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171221/9543aa61/attachment-0001.html>;
Dan Bryant [ARCHIVE] /
npub1h0ā¦c9su0
2023-06-07 18:09:01
in reply to nevent1qā¦k7xc
Author Public Key
npub1h0jpmhuc5ufwtzz92ut7erelpzfu2vrfntc2nr97smq27qfckfwsyc9su0Published at
2023-06-07 18:09:01Event JSON
{
"id": "4be3cc69935c04ef114d3f72b3388b561126b6a6964ffadc242ec0ae22a85dba",
"pubkey": "bbe41ddf98a712e588455717ec8f3f0893c530699af0a98cbe86c0af0138b25d",
"created_at": 1686161341,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a95dc4624423bc647bfe926615c717637c1b537dc203c75309dfccd8f9b44c49",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"67e50f13fce1f4ee843f1bdf57d5c9b5869f02b57345f5e8ee26f3ddc16d513c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2017-12-21\nš Original message:Thank you... I've updated.\n\n\u003e New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.\n\nFair enough... I still think there are those who would still like an\nexisting sign/verify BIP to reference.\n\nOn Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Thursday 21 December 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/\n\u003e bip-0xyz.mediawiki\n\u003e\n\u003e It's not even correct... Your first \"verify message\" step is not possible;\n\u003e you\n\u003e can't get a public key from an address.\n\u003e\n\u003e What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key\n\u003e recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that\n\u003e and\n\u003e comparing it to the address provided.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been\n\u003e \u003e published in a BIP. My proposal is simply to provide a reference point\n\u003e for\n\u003e \u003e future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.\n\u003e\n\u003e New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171221/9543aa61/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "5b9bb8db2329d285833288d9b269e9211281408549cb10893163012a602d75b24ce0f32231766e0dfa3499e5785b073e753da8e0a8b64702a60fd8ff4a35e9b4"
}