Damian Williamson [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-12-21 📝 Original message:In all seriousness, being ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-12-21
📝 Original message:In all seriousness, being able to sign a message is an important feature whether it is with Bitcoin Core or, with some other method. It is a good feature and it would be worthwhile IMHO to update it for SegWit addresses. I don't know about renewing it altogether, I like the current simplicity.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
------------------------------------
Sometimes I like to sign a message just to verify that is what I have said.
-
Bitcoin: 1PMUf9aaQ41M4bgVbCAPVwAeuKvj8CwxJg
------------------------------------
Signature:
HwJPqyWF0CbdsR7x737HbNIDoRufsrMI5XYQsKZ+MrWCJ6K7imtLY00sTCmSMDigZxRuoxyYZyQUw/lL0m/MV9M=
(Of course, signed messages will verify better usually with plain text and not HTML interpreted email - need a switch for outlook.com to send plaintext.)
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 December 2017 8:58 AM
To: Pavol Rusnak; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sign / Verify message against SegWit P2SH addresses.
For what it’s worth, I think it would be quite easy to do better than the implied solution of rejiggering the message signing system to support non-P2PKH scripts. Instead, have the signature be an actual bitcoin transaction with inputs that have the script being signed. Use the salted hash of the message being signed as the FORKID as if this were a spin-off with replay protection. This accomplishes three things:
(1) This enables signing by any infrastructure out there — including hardware wallets and 2FA signing services — that have enabled support for FORKID signing, which is a wide swath of the ecosystem because of Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold.
(2) It generalizes the message signing to allow multi-party signing setups as complicated (via sighash, etc.) as those bitcoin transactions allow, using existing and future tools based on Partially Signed Bitcoin Transactions; and
(3) It unifies a single approach for message signing, proof of reserve (where the inputs are actual UTXOs), and off-chain colored coins.
There’s the issue of size efficiency, but for the single-party message signing application that can be handled by a BIP that specifies a template for constructing the pseudo-transaction and its inputs from a raw script.
Mark
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 08/12/17 19:25, Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I know there are posts, and an issue opened against it, but is there
>> anyone writing a BIP for Sign / Verify message against a SegWit address?
>
> Dan, are you still planning to write this BIP?
>
> --
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol "stick" Rusnak
> CTO, SatoshiLabs
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171221/2ae67657/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:In all seriousness, being able to sign a message is an important feature whether it is with Bitcoin Core or, with some other method. It is a good feature and it would be worthwhile IMHO to update it for SegWit addresses. I don't know about renewing it altogether, I like the current simplicity.
Regards,
Damian Williamson
------------------------------------
Sometimes I like to sign a message just to verify that is what I have said.
-
Bitcoin: 1PMUf9aaQ41M4bgVbCAPVwAeuKvj8CwxJg
------------------------------------
Signature:
HwJPqyWF0CbdsR7x737HbNIDoRufsrMI5XYQsKZ+MrWCJ6K7imtLY00sTCmSMDigZxRuoxyYZyQUw/lL0m/MV9M=
(Of course, signed messages will verify better usually with plain text and not HTML interpreted email - need a switch for outlook.com to send plaintext.)
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 December 2017 8:58 AM
To: Pavol Rusnak; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sign / Verify message against SegWit P2SH addresses.
For what it’s worth, I think it would be quite easy to do better than the implied solution of rejiggering the message signing system to support non-P2PKH scripts. Instead, have the signature be an actual bitcoin transaction with inputs that have the script being signed. Use the salted hash of the message being signed as the FORKID as if this were a spin-off with replay protection. This accomplishes three things:
(1) This enables signing by any infrastructure out there — including hardware wallets and 2FA signing services — that have enabled support for FORKID signing, which is a wide swath of the ecosystem because of Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold.
(2) It generalizes the message signing to allow multi-party signing setups as complicated (via sighash, etc.) as those bitcoin transactions allow, using existing and future tools based on Partially Signed Bitcoin Transactions; and
(3) It unifies a single approach for message signing, proof of reserve (where the inputs are actual UTXOs), and off-chain colored coins.
There’s the issue of size efficiency, but for the single-party message signing application that can be handled by a BIP that specifies a template for constructing the pseudo-transaction and its inputs from a raw script.
Mark
> On Dec 19, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 08/12/17 19:25, Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I know there are posts, and an issue opened against it, but is there
>> anyone writing a BIP for Sign / Verify message against a SegWit address?
>
> Dan, are you still planning to write this BIP?
>
> --
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol "stick" Rusnak
> CTO, SatoshiLabs
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171221/2ae67657/attachment.html>;