Shane Jonas [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2019-04-03 to 2020-12-25
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:27:57

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2020-12-25
📝 Original message:There’s a BIP to create a standard API document for the Bitcoin JSON-RPC API
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/776
here’s an example of the generic ethereum api https://github.com/etclabscore/ethereum-json-rpc-specification/blob/master/openrpc.json
and another example of just the wallet interface https://github.com/etclabscore/signatory/blob/master/openrpc.json
here’s a live demo with interactive documentation:
https://playground.open-rpc.org/?schemaUrl=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/etclabscore/ethereum-json-rpc-specification/master/openrpc.json
Creating a standard api document like this makes it a lot easier to build dev tools and documentation.
I’d love to help document the bitcoin JSON-RPC API, let me know how I can help.
> On Dec 23, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Obviously Bitcoin has a wallet api, intermingled with other protocol APIs:
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list
>
> For security, a standard wallet API should write a token/port to a
> local file where the user can grab that token and use it (that's
> basically how the existing bitcoind does it, with a username/password
> living in a file... not as nice as a token/port, IMO)
>
> Probably any such standards document should do its best to be
> compatible with the existing APIs that so many are already familiar
> with. Or maybe I misunderstand the proposal.
>
> - Erik
>
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM monokh via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and rather focus on the spec.
>>
>> Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing efforts, relevant specs or use cases.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications
>>
>> ## Abstract
>>
>> This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a standard.
>>
>> ## Summary
>>
>> Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as follows in javascript:
>>
>> ```
>> {
>> // Wallet Metadata
>> wallet: {
>> name: 'Bitcoin Core'
>> },
>>
>> // Request access to the wallet for the current host
>> async enable: (),
>>
>> // Request addresses and signatures from wallet
>> async request ({ method, params })
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be exposed.
>>
>> ## Motivation
>>
>> Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.
>>
>> Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of usable bitcoin applications.
>>
>> With a standardised wallet API:
>>
>> - Wallets have a clear API to implement
>> - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour
>> - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice for users
>>
>> If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be developed more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This creates a positive feedback loop.
>>
>> ## Specification
>>
>> For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web applications running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily implemented in other contexts.
>>
>> ### General Rules
>>
>> - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always prompt the user for confirmation
>>
>> ### Types
>>
>> **UserDeniedError**
>> An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied by the user
>> Type: Error
>>
>> **Hex**
>> Type: String
>> Example: `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`
>>
>> **Address**
>> Address details
>> Type: Object
>> Example:
>>
>> ```
>> {
>> "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs",
>> "publicKey": "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a",
>> "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0"
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> ### API
>>
>> The wallet must implement the following methods.
>>
>> **enable**
>>
>> The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet.
>>
>> If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity.
>>
>> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>>
>> **request**
>>
>> The request method must take one parameter in the following format:
>>
>> ```
>> {
>> "method": "wallet_methodName",
>> "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> For a list of mandatory methods see Table
>>
>> The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved.
>>
>> Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for confirmation
>>
>> On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the method table.
>>
>> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>>
>> **Mandatory methods**
>>
>> method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1, change = false`]
>> return: `[ Address ]`
>> error: UserDeniedError
>>
>> method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]`
>> return: Signature `Hex`
>> error: UserDeniedError
>>
>> method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]`
>> return: `psbtBase64`
>> error: UserDeniedError
>>
>> method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]`
>> return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst`
>> error: UserDeniedError
>>
>> ## Rationale
>>
>> The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other requests such as node RPC calls.
>>
>> **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?**
>> The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.
>>
>> **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, getUtxos, ... ?**
>> A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usage. The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to do the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement these functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.
>>
>> ## Security Implications
>>
>> Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally as the security and privacy of the user is at risk.
>>
>> ### Signing
>>
>> Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded behind confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked.
>>
>> ### Privacy
>>
>> Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys. Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet could protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to give the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow the option to expose only selected derivation paths.
>>
>> -monokh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20201225/26428a28/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 18:17:32

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2019-04-03
📝 Original message:Similar to how Bitcion has BIPs to normalize bitcoin wallets, this is a
proposal to normalize the Bitcoin RPC Interface.
Just one example of the problems that arise: If a client doesn't provide
getblock or doesn't work in the same way it will have
unintended consequences .
Having a standard described interfaces lets you generate documentation,
generate RPC clients, test interfaces, across implementations.
Here is the proposal:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/776
Here is just an example of what something like that would look like for
Bitcoin:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/776#issuecomment-479649785
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20190403/8d7a9bc2/attachment-0001.html>