📅 Original date posted:2022-08-05
📝 Original message:> 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.
In that case, I propose the following:
- I scrap the Taproot/Schorr and the two extensions inside the BIP, which will leave it with only parts and formats which have already been standardized (effectively, the legacy and segwit addresses).
Because here's the thing: The reason why wallets are not implementing sign/verify correctly is because there is no reference manual for doing so. This informational BIP is supposed to solve that problem by providing only a list of instructions for computing ECSDA sign/verify correctly.
Also, it is not visible right now, but there will also be a reference implementation so that wallet developers can actually code them correctly, as you've stated.
- Ali
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 9:51 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220805/bc680629/attachment.html>;
Ali Sherief [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xq…q2u5f
2023-06-07 23:12:30
in reply to nevent1q…hums
Author Public Key
npub1xq96jnxfzrdq4zgre20yqjrjsd29vcw8ymypl4v59cg6q6p66cts8q2u5fPublished at
2023-06-07 23:12:30Event JSON
{
"id": "2c7a678b21f565efa3fa748fc1ef637ec6dfbe4bc7ac9849ebe95ef75d7922e5",
"pubkey": "300ba94cc910da0a8903ca9e40487283545661c726c81fd5942e11a0683ad617",
"created_at": 1686179550,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fb0c51c47fb0dc7c36668ecc3d86fd399320d3c6e12d870c36c10551b62e25cc",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a4a60b9f1c41b8ca8a5056c83f6861e8d09b57f2c5a2d3123c83456b93f1dede",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2022-08-05\n📝 Original message:\u003e IMO, there is no benefit to an additional message signing standard, especially\n\u003e one that doesn't address the problems with the current standard or (at\n\u003e present) BIP322.\n\nIn that case, I propose the following:\n\n- I scrap the Taproot/Schorr and the two extensions inside the BIP, which will leave it with only parts and formats which have already been standardized (effectively, the legacy and segwit addresses).\n\nBecause here's the thing: The reason why wallets are not implementing sign/verify correctly is because there is no reference manual for doing so. This informational BIP is supposed to solve that problem by providing only a list of instructions for computing ECSDA sign/verify correctly.\n\nAlso, it is not visible right now, but there will also be a reference implementation so that wallet developers can actually code them correctly, as you've stated.\n\n- Ali\n\nOn Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 9:51 AM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Friday 05 August 2022 04:05:56 Ali Sherief wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Yeah, I have a specific reason to advance this first (emphasis on the word\n\u003e\u003e first).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I briefly mentioned in the BIP that BIP322 has superior message\n\u003e\u003e verification capabilities. This is true, but it suffers from the drawback\n\u003e\u003e that wallets are not using it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Likely because it is a draft and incomplete.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Message signatures are highly relied upon in some places (just to name a\n\u003e\u003e few, at many mining pools e.g. Slushpool, and the Bitcointalk forum),\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm not aware of any using the current message signatures _correctly_.\n\u003e Note they are not useful for proving that you sent a transaction, nor have the\n\u003e ability to send a transaction or access to bitcoins.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e This BIP is kind of like a \"bumper car\", in that it forces compliance with\n\u003e\u003e previous BIPs that extend the message signing format, in particular BIP137.\n\u003e\n\u003e BIPs can't force anything, they're just documentation.\n\u003e\n\u003e IMO, there is no benefit to an additional message signing standard, especially\n\u003e one that doesn't address the problems with the current standard or (at\n\u003e present) BIP322.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20220805/bc680629/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "7224745d2d50c1a4066b30c505e64c398ddda336f43f0111e8ec9d50c36ca907f84c9ecbda228ee4a3299b97f04c026834ce2dfbc005e0badd3f062629c5e99b"
}