From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Ali Sherief <ali@notatether.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:51:52 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <4Lz70s3l79z4x2h7@mail-41103.protonmail.ch>
 <202208041926.37309.luke@dashjr.org>
 <oqwpWAHa9lo-RuyC8iwnUDDMmMmQjM3i3a2wuXkN0t3GeoGdTnHoHPH90_KkaVsogyrn2hTFbUN6XKR364K3jOnplsBoKW2AaWJZfBKBqz4=@notatether.com>
In-Reply-To: <oqwpWAHa9lo-RuyC8iwnUDDMmMmQjM3i3a2wuXkN0t3GeoGdTnHoHPH90_KkaVsogyrn2hTFbUN6XKR364K3jOnplsBoKW2AaWJZfBKBqz4=@notatether.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202208050651.54991.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-notatether-signedmessage
Precedence: list

On Friday 05 August 2022 04:05:56 Ali Sherief wrote:
> Yeah, I have a specific reason to advance this first (emphasis on the word
> first).
>
> I briefly mentioned in the BIP that BIP322 has superior message
> verification capabilities. This is true, but it suffers from the drawback
> that wallets are not using it.

Likely because it is a draft and incomplete.

> Message signatures are highly relied upon in some places (just to name a
> few, at many mining pools e.g. Slushpool, and the Bitcointalk forum), 

I'm not aware of any using the current message signatures _correctly_.
Note they are not useful for proving that you sent a transaction, nor have the 
ability to send a transaction or access to bitcoins.

> This BIP is kind of like a "bumper car", in that it forces compliance with
> previous BIPs that extend the message signing format, in particular BIP137.

BIPs can't force anything, they're just documentation.

IMO, there is no benefit to an additional message signing standard, especially 
one that doesn't address the problems with the current standard or (at 
present) BIP322.

Luke