From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Karl Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:14:04 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.15.1-gentoo; KDE/4.14.37; x86_64; ; )
References: <CALJw2w5=g-FL+MZ08DEoLxVzOKbSXeKu50drE1b4P0JZJpdTyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201803141236.48869.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CALJw2w5NQ=WX1Cm4aUXMN=uxn8NLHAfYDLEtqUptce5DCWZXWA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALJw2w5NQ=WX1Cm4aUXMN=uxn8NLHAfYDLEtqUptce5DCWZXWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201803151414.06301.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] {sign|verify}message replacement
Precedence: list

On Thursday 15 March 2018 7:36:48 AM Karl Johan Alm wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Ideally, it should support not only just "proof I receive at this
> > address", but also "proof of funds" (as a separate feature) since this
> > is a popular misuse of the current message signing (which doesn't
> > actually prove funds at all). To do this, it needs to be capable of
> > signing for multiple inputs.
> 
> Re-reading this, I think what you mean is it should be possible to
> create a proof for (a) specific UTXO(s), hence "inputs". That sounds
> pretty useful, yeah!

Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as 
be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are 
available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession 
of funds, only that you receive funds.