1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957C3C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <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>
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"
<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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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
|
