MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: DKBryant@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201712212309.07243.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAAUFj100ULfTbEorSK2PF5nvW-R_TCMOiboBBEMj+eS5upgU8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<201712212309.07243.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:21:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAUFj127=fNaPh+RtGgTbqDfxS=+ihCwDDWhkRpvdRSLtRf7xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP for Legacy Sign Verify functions
Precedence: list

--94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Thank you... I've updated.

> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.

Fair enough... I still think there are those who would still like an
existing sign/verify BIP to reference.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 21 December 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/
> bip-0xyz.mediawiki
>
> It's not even correct... Your first "verify message" step is not possible;
> you
> can't get a public key from an address.
>
> What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key
> recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that
> and
> comparing it to the address provided.
>
> > Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been
> > published in a BIP.  My proposal is simply to provide a reference point
> for
> > future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.
>
> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.
>
> Luke
>

--94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you... I&#39;ve updated.<div><br></div><div>&gt;=C2=
=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">New schemes should probably NOT be base=
d on the current one.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br=
></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Fair enough... I still =
think there are those who would still like an existing sign/verify BIP to r=
eference.</span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote">On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thursday 21 Decembe=
r 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/bip-=
0xyz.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bri=
anddk/<wbr>bips/blob/legacysignverify/<wbr>bip-0xyz.mediawiki</a><br>
<br>
It&#39;s not even correct... Your first &quot;verify message&quot; step is =
not possible; you<br>
can&#39;t get a public key from an address.<br>
<br>
What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key<br>
recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that an=
d<br>
comparing it to the address provided.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
&gt; Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been<b=
r>
&gt; published in a BIP.=C2=A0 My proposal is simply to provide a reference=
 point for<br>
&gt; future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.<br>
<br>
</span>New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec--