MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c5f5105e2d5b9cc1873f84cb0b172285@rainloop.aaawop.com>
References: <c5f5105e2d5b9cc1873f84cb0b172285@rainloop.aaawop.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:51:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHv+tb5ym=bEdGGAYGqKqNXfVCESmt924i+vajavprnBrbhvbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Kerin <thomas.kerin@gmail.com>
To: "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io" <arthur@bitcoin-fr.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages
Precedence: list

--089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I think it would be more akin to bip70. I have a similar proposal, largely
already written up around this. I'm very interested in having this for
multi signature wallets.
On 14 Sep 2015 8:06 pm, "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> I realized that there isn't any way to ask for a signature (or to verify a
> message) as easily you can do when requesting a payment using a bitcoin 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 become available in most
> bitcoin clients who already support message signing/verifying and payment
> url (or QRCode) and enable new uses of bitcoin signatures.
> A way to gain proper consensus is going through a BIP, so that's why I'm
> here: to present my idea publicly before going any further (draft BIP and
> reference implementation).
> Some thoughts
>  - like BIP0021: "Bitcoin clients MUST NOT act on URIs without getting the
> user's authorization." so signing requires the user to manually approve the
> process
>  - it could use the same URI scheme than BIP0021 with an additional
> parameter (ex: signaction=<verify/sign>) or use another one like BIP121
> (ex: btcsig:)
> PS : I'll also post a topic in "Development & Technical Discussion"
> section on Bitcointalk
>
> --
> Arthur Bouquet
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">I think it would be more akin to bip70. I have a similar pro=
posal, largely already written up around this. I&#39;m very interested in h=
aving this for multi signature wallets.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 14 Sep 2015 8:06 pm, &quot;Arthur - <a href=
=3D"http://bitcoin-fr.io">bitcoin-fr.io</a> via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><u></u><div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:=
13px">Hi,<div></div><div>I realized that there isn&#39;t any way to ask for=
 a signature (or to verify a message) as easily you can do when requesting =
a payment using a bitcoin URI scheme (BIP0021).</div><div>I think a URI sch=
eme to use the signing tools in bitcoin core might be useful, and with a pr=
oper consensus it could become available in most bitcoin clients who alread=
y support message signing/verifying and payment url (or QRCode) and enable =
new uses of bitcoin signatures.</div><div></div><div>A way to gain proper c=
onsensus is going through a BIP, so that&#39;s why I&#39;m here: to present=
 my idea publicly before going any further (draft BIP and reference impleme=
ntation).</div><div></div><div>Some thoughts</div><div>=C2=A0- like BIP0021=
: &quot;Bitcoin clients MUST NOT act on URIs without getting the user&#39;s=
 authorization.&quot; so signing requires the user to manually approve the =
process</div><div>=C2=A0- it could use the same URI scheme than BIP0021 wit=
h an additional parameter (ex: signaction=3D&lt;verify/sign&gt;) or use ano=
ther one like BIP121 (ex: btcsig:)</div><div></div><div>PS : I&#39;ll also =
post a topic in &quot;Development &amp; Technical Discussion&quot; section =
on Bitcointalk<br>=C2=A0</div><div>--</div><div>Arthur Bouquet</div></div><=
/div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>

--089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88--