Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957C3C002D for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C73833C6 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:52:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 69C73833C6 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org header.i=@dashjr.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=zinan header.b=qdnXIqT2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PFiD8SfAPCvn for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:52:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 53D12833A3 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D12833A3 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.151.133.18]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AB2CC38ADDB3; Fri, 5 Aug 2022 06:51:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1659682317; bh=MPj9A7N1DwBPtztJ4GBSXLfoS1mu5hc3/CvD7f2JSW0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Cc; b=qdnXIqT2/FMqTWugZHHF5u5Qb696KWVqCugF7KCXfA/KNy+eG0MQHeQbYwL0kCtvh mJ4R9lT/T3Ijlhl83UvH39bIA4G8rosFwLD3xWx27sUKUpy2Lssi6s6nJyhr/nTmNk KIYkIyQUbZsJQxfMs1rN8ref3Q3KSD2ldkKOiv1Y= X-Hashcash: 1:25:220805:ali@notatether.com::8AJqerolUmiqxqZM:PDm X-Hashcash: 1:25:220805:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::bst8cHb==Vp+5gB1:fjeT From: Luke Dashjr To: Ali Sherief 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> In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > 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" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-notatether-signedmessage X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2022 06:52:01 -0000 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