Ali Sherief [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-07-28 📝 Original message:> Yes, that's an ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-07-28
📝 Original message:> Yes, that's an intentional design choice in BIP340, see note 5: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki#cite_ref-5-0. The choice is either batch verifiability or public key recovery.
The way I understood the BIP, was that a user can do batch recovery or single-key recovery. Can you explain how it is possible to recover a public key from a single-key signature, because a few days earlier on the BIP-notatether-messageverify thread I was told (I think it was achow) that Schnorr doesn't allow for public key recovery.
At any case, I was already planning on just concatenating the public key after the signature (the other option I was thinking of, appending it after the Taproot address, is quite unruly in my opinion).
> I think it would be much better if people would cooperate to get BIP322 to move forward than to keep inventing other formats. It's the obvious solution in my opinion: not restricted to single-key policies, compatible with every script type, and trivially extensible to future schemes.
This is why I especially tried to avoid making a new format - My BIP is strictly an Informational one. That strategy worked pretty well up to now, but now I find myself forced to make a small concession in the design to support the verification of Taproot address. But I'm glad it's quite trivial as appending a single variable. So at least this BIP won't be an obstacle to any such effort.
[Besides, since I'm also planning on detecting BIP137 in the verification methods, I can assume the Signature field contains arbitrary data.]
> > , just like BIP340).
>
>
> How so? Every taproot compatible wallet has a BIP340 implementation.
I guess I made an assumption, since almost all of the wallets I have seen did not have a sign message feature, not even for legacy addresses.
- Ali
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, July 28th, 2022 at 3:27 PM, Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev at wuille.net> wrote:
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Thursday, July 28th, 2022 at 3:27 AM, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > Essentially, zero-knowledge proofs such as Schnorr are not compatible with address message signing - the public key cannot be retrieved from the address or the signature, so the address does not actually prove the authenticity of a Schnorr signature. That's why the public key is required as an input in the first place.
>
>
> Yes, that's an intentional design choice in BIP340, see note 5: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki#cite_ref-5-0. The choice is either batch verifiability or public key recovery.
>
> I regret ever using public key recovery when introducing the old legacy message signing scheme. It should just have used script signatures like BIP322 proposes.
>
> > In order to make it compatible with the address signing mechanism, the zero-knowledge part would have to be sacrificed in my BIP, or else a completely separate message signing format just for Taproot would be required
>
>
> You can avoid relying on public key recovery, and include the public key + BIP340 signature in the encoded signature.
>
> > (which, in my view, is redundant - there is already the draft BIP322 which can verify anything and everything, but nobody is implementing that
>
>
> I think it would be much better if people would cooperate to get BIP322 to move forward than to keep inventing other formats. It's the obvious solution in my opinion: not restricted to single-key policies, compatible with every script type, and trivially extensible to future schemes.
>
> > , just like BIP340).
>
>
> How so? Every taproot compatible wallet has a BIP340 implementation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
📝 Original message:> Yes, that's an intentional design choice in BIP340, see note 5: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki#cite_ref-5-0. The choice is either batch verifiability or public key recovery.
The way I understood the BIP, was that a user can do batch recovery or single-key recovery. Can you explain how it is possible to recover a public key from a single-key signature, because a few days earlier on the BIP-notatether-messageverify thread I was told (I think it was achow) that Schnorr doesn't allow for public key recovery.
At any case, I was already planning on just concatenating the public key after the signature (the other option I was thinking of, appending it after the Taproot address, is quite unruly in my opinion).
> I think it would be much better if people would cooperate to get BIP322 to move forward than to keep inventing other formats. It's the obvious solution in my opinion: not restricted to single-key policies, compatible with every script type, and trivially extensible to future schemes.
This is why I especially tried to avoid making a new format - My BIP is strictly an Informational one. That strategy worked pretty well up to now, but now I find myself forced to make a small concession in the design to support the verification of Taproot address. But I'm glad it's quite trivial as appending a single variable. So at least this BIP won't be an obstacle to any such effort.
[Besides, since I'm also planning on detecting BIP137 in the verification methods, I can assume the Signature field contains arbitrary data.]
> > , just like BIP340).
>
>
> How so? Every taproot compatible wallet has a BIP340 implementation.
I guess I made an assumption, since almost all of the wallets I have seen did not have a sign message feature, not even for legacy addresses.
- Ali
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, July 28th, 2022 at 3:27 PM, Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev at wuille.net> wrote:
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Thursday, July 28th, 2022 at 3:27 AM, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > Essentially, zero-knowledge proofs such as Schnorr are not compatible with address message signing - the public key cannot be retrieved from the address or the signature, so the address does not actually prove the authenticity of a Schnorr signature. That's why the public key is required as an input in the first place.
>
>
> Yes, that's an intentional design choice in BIP340, see note 5: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0340.mediawiki#cite_ref-5-0. The choice is either batch verifiability or public key recovery.
>
> I regret ever using public key recovery when introducing the old legacy message signing scheme. It should just have used script signatures like BIP322 proposes.
>
> > In order to make it compatible with the address signing mechanism, the zero-knowledge part would have to be sacrificed in my BIP, or else a completely separate message signing format just for Taproot would be required
>
>
> You can avoid relying on public key recovery, and include the public key + BIP340 signature in the encoded signature.
>
> > (which, in my view, is redundant - there is already the draft BIP322 which can verify anything and everything, but nobody is implementing that
>
>
> I think it would be much better if people would cooperate to get BIP322 to move forward than to keep inventing other formats. It's the obvious solution in my opinion: not restricted to single-key policies, compatible with every script type, and trivially extensible to future schemes.
>
> > , just like BIP340).
>
>
> How so? Every taproot compatible wallet has a BIP340 implementation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter