From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C3228FF for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:57:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5367A1A6 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 12:57:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E2362070C; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 07:57:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 09 Dec 2017 07:57:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sprovoost.nl; h= content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=AXe6d/h9f82VXMFzbyF5uEsd08TNWGWSLxwL0pro1q4=; b=Rjl0tbGZ ZjFw1saP/nkmYORUt4I4y/eWsH279Mo/ov6iPCL1KkGHwGs7UE0FNZYoTkLo4S2B EM4ZZVN9FEomJSEX7gJeDxBBcU9KUCbUb+4x0r/Cl7LVvuOEWi4YymZ8wtpN3cJu HBHmf9ayENaxn7zyAnjsgycjzMFFO4yG8VdFsx5dM9d3vKIz+3kxNtVPuLcesbvO HfYFrmhcr1+vFT23SykERHPOCkisPK+UpU7epV5yFL7VTC3RM11VmtqSGhw7N8/k 56oFR33zr7XRkt3HdTX0es2iNSBcPVANJoFnrUXYs4Lgu/IPkOpCMwr8Q1U9swrc AGBUyu0/pXFtuQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=AXe6d/h9f82VXMFzbyF5uEsd08TNW GWSLxwL0pro1q4=; b=jK2qpaDM6oeaiQ9m3737laV5iSiyS9jJ7e7FaCam7AToQ r7EsFNAm6XnPcS3rSFMvCQUITU5TixiD0CpI8mRQip5MOOFXxcaLP66oegsObEYV gmX6o15ua6fwn5mMRgeArTAZ3tzAu8dgD9MmWnoHHoSR7+8I2EBVXLFX5HU06SdH /8gpRXQJFUTRdGtJReX574QA6zG74y8oW6EkNJqQJDdT0MGmMlnEDzb/hbcEEssr qICchZjGO93MSbtqAe3H9sHcSMNqkbpO0oUEWmW4iEqoDcc5K9g/J2qtk96Lb5AL BXnFjOiqfixYNcI1az5qpbpFreDF6W/YbTxgSN7nQ== X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.178.108] (54693d0f.cm-12-2a.dynamic.ziggo.nl [84.105.61.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 932FD24536; Sat, 9 Dec 2017 07:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Sjors Provoost Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1E94DC79-33A7-48B9-BC12-506FF1090FC6"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\)) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:57:52 +0100 References: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , DKBryant@gmail.com In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <69F75C75-6E51-4189-B3AE-032573B49A92@sprovoost.nl> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 14:28:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sign / Verify message against SegWit P2SH addresses. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 12:57:57 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_1E94DC79-33A7-48B9-BC12-506FF1090FC6 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_924940A3-557F-4C07-8EE5-C6676A048BF0" --Apple-Mail=_924940A3-557F-4C07-8EE5-C6676A048BF0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I would like to see this specifically for P2SH-PWPKH and/or native = SegWit bech32 addresses. Use cases I can think of are "I'm the whale in charge of these funds, = listen to me" and some form of polling. It's nice if funds aren't excluded from these type of functionalities = just because they have a complicated redeem script. So something more = generic like the Elements implementation / suggestion Greg Maxwell = referred to in the Github thread would be nice too. Is it also useful or possible to sign a message proving you are able to = redeem some arbitrary branch in a MAST-like tree of scripts? What about = being a minority part of a multisig? All these features have privacy trade-offs, as well as perhaps security = trade-offs, e.g. when you reveal a public key that was otherwise hidden = behind a hash (i.e. if someone were to break secp256k1, they'd first = organize a popular poll). There's no BIP for the current message signing mechanism either afaik. Sjors > Op 8 dec. 2017, om 19:25 heeft Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev = het volgende geschreven: >=20 > I know there are posts, and an issue opened against it, but is there = anyone writing a BIP for Sign / Verify message against a SegWit address? >=20 > I realize it is not a feature in wide use, but I think it still serves = an important purpose, such as when proof of assets are requested. >=20 > ref: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10542 = >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail=_924940A3-557F-4C07-8EE5-C6676A048BF0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii I = would like to see this specifically for P2SH-PWPKH and/or native = SegWit bech32 addresses.

Use cases I can think of are "I'm the whale in charge of = these funds, listen to me" and some form of polling.

It's nice if funds = aren't excluded from these type of functionalities just because they = have a complicated redeem script. So something more generic like the = Elements implementation / suggestion Greg Maxwell referred to in the = Github thread would be nice too.

Is it also useful or possible to sign a = message proving you are able to redeem some arbitrary branch in a = MAST-like tree of scripts? What about being a minority part of a = multisig?

All = these features have privacy trade-offs, as well as perhaps security = trade-offs, e.g. when you reveal a public key that was otherwise hidden = behind a hash (i.e. if someone were to break secp256k1, they'd first = organize a popular poll).

There's no BIP for the current message = signing mechanism either afaik.

Sjors

Op 8 = dec. 2017, om 19:25 heeft Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> het volgende = geschreven:

I know there are posts, and an = issue opened against it, but is there anyone writing a BIP for Sign / = Verify message against a SegWit address?

I realize it is not a feature in wide = use, but I think it still serves an important purpose, such as when = proof of assets are requested.

ref: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10542
=

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev = mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= br class=3D"">

= --Apple-Mail=_924940A3-557F-4C07-8EE5-C6676A048BF0-- --Apple-Mail=_1E94DC79-33A7-48B9-BC12-506FF1090FC6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE7ZvfetalXiMuhFJCV/+b28wwEAkFAlor3dAACgkQV/+b28ww EAkzxhAAuRhAdzXrPE+/xxdeltSDHRq5LArPA+mfY730kmUA/Kksc6AE3TlZWef+ Cgcf3Yngb5Uvj64QP4qw1h7LiDTmvW67Yd8e1Yac7WxZR4ArMWZ4gf61gc2J4Jzl +i4Yp56MJdy6MJ/MDvNIjKi801FMKgDzDDsbn/4sBVUiJhzdG8xhw6WlYU0XWwFc PPxAoaV1VoXcRwJuS7NJfHDTU81QciUYELeLLPydgpx2CjzFsmRFv7+Dkg85df3/ ZiCdvLMJ1gx4+IdN0jzlPiM/w7i0R8Y+9tpxSoBp5EtXq7zGHtbZs/icqrl8NBE7 /Bvb+EMi1iczJ8dRh+sBbc430ehvdYPGpfq6t5uaWQb5rm6snVezX9z16L0OIhpy x4JlfOkSTgNdbrKlXfIAUVzafe4BHWXsfxXnXxEtdXBqpjKmJOySuYUaL/+j1V+L pr2LdFh1xte07Al+nIEhLllA7TISf7p0aAYr+rCqv1ili5J4HfB0p1vb2fOJSf7e 6VEfDWjNkk2b7QkWVcHmg5eo2Gl0yQ0aR+0lRrsYAx8Dd1EYiKCZ41zuQ6Ap+bSe S+VYbI22s2TZbuMAuI1MVJREKTXbH7oNrR8bYdS69zLt4d8L30azJYoPjy+GjDMg Vwc0/MCihtY13Ie3MCE+R+r0oo+I1c9cRaeFAueqIy/LWF6KUsc= =buoc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_1E94DC79-33A7-48B9-BC12-506FF1090FC6--