Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 10:49:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <15ce53e7feabef3c9a40c5d3df9ff283@rainloop.aaawop.com>
From: "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io" <arthur@bitcoin-fr.io>
To: "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr.org>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
In-Reply-To: <201509150403.40909.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201509150403.40909.luke@dashjr.org>
	<c5f5105e2d5b9cc1873f84cb0b172285@rainloop.aaawop.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages
Precedence: list

September 15 2015 6:04 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:=0A> I t=
hink probably the whole signed message thing needs to be rethought. The=
=0A> most common "uses" today seem to be insecure cases that it doesn't a=
ctually=0A> work in: people trying to prove ownership of bitcoins and/or =
that they sent=0A> bitcoins (current signed messages can do neither). Ide=
ally, whatever the new=0A> method is should also avoid using the same key=
 as for signing transactions,=0A> since the public key is technically pri=
vate information. Furthermore, since=0A> addresses are semi-deprecated (b=
y the payment protocol), I'm not sure it=0A> makes sense to do this witho=
ut designing an entire authentication system,=0A> which may be rather com=
plex.=0A> =0A> Luke=0A=0AMy proposal is about the current signing process=
 (which exists event it it's not perfect) but it could also work with a n=
ew signing message system tomorrow. It more about give users an easier wa=
y to access existing tools than the "sign message thing" itself.=0A=0ABTW=
 I'm aware of privacy issues, but could you elaborate on why the use case=
 your are referring to doesn't actually work?=0AHere are a use of bitcoin=
 signatures ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D497545.0 ) to spe=
ak about a real case.=0A=0A--=0AArthur