Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E014C1165 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:06:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:16 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.aaawop.com (area51.powaaa.com [62.210.66.225]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A15F249 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:06:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rainloop.aaawop.com (area51.powaaa.com [62.210.66.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: arthur@powaaa.com) by mail.aaawop.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10AC743A62 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:57:02 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:57:01 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_862_559512907.1442257021" Message-ID: X-Mailer: RainLoop/1.8.2.291 From: "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io" To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.6 at area51 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:06:21 -0000 ------=_Part_862_559512907.1442257021 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,I realized that there isn't any way to ask for a signature (or to veri= fy a message) as easily you can do when requesting a payment using a bitc= oin URI scheme (BIP0021).I think a URI scheme to use the signing tools in= bitcoin core might be useful, and with a proper consensus it could becom= e available in most bitcoin clients who already support message signing/v= erifying and payment url (or QRCode) and enable new uses of bitcoin signa= tures.A way to gain proper consensus is going through a BIP, so that's wh= y I'm here: to present my idea publicly before going any further (draft B= IP and reference implementation).Some thoughts=C2=A0- like BIP0021: "Bitc= oin clients MUST NOT act on URIs without getting the user's authorization= ." so signing requires the user to manually approve the process=C2=A0- it= could use the same URI scheme than BIP0021 with an additional parameter = (ex: signaction=3D) or use another one like BIP121 (ex: btcsig:)PS : I'll= also post a topic in "Development & Technical Discussion" section on Bit= cointalk=0A=C2=A0--Arthur Bouquet ------=_Part_862_559512907.1442257021 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
H= i,
I realized that there isn't= any way to ask for a signature (or to verify a message) as easily you ca= n do when requesting a payment using a bitcoin URI scheme (BIP0021).
I think a URI scheme to use the signing tools in bitc= oin core might be useful, and with a proper consensus it could become ava= ilable in most bitcoin clients who already support message signing/verify= ing and payment url (or QRCode) and enable new uses of bitcoin signatures= .
A way to gain proper c= onsensus is going through a BIP, so that's why I'm here: to present my id= ea publicly before going any further (draft BIP and reference implementat= ion).
Some thoughts
=C2=A0- like BIP0021: "Bitcoin clients MUST NOT act o= n URIs without getting the user's authorization." so signing requires the= user to manually approve the process
=C2=A0- it = could use the same URI scheme than BIP0021 with an additional parameter (= ex: signaction=3D<verify/sign>) or use another one like BIP121 (ex:= btcsig:)
PS : I'll also= post a topic in "Development & Technical Discussion" section on Bitc= ointalk
=C2=A0
--
Arth= ur Bouquet
------=_Part_862_559512907.1442257021--