From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EDA1C002D for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 17:54:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4CA41C56 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 17:54:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 7A4CA41C56 Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=notatether.com header.i=@notatether.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail header.b=TQRqmovg X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S5AhizaI9LNO for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 17:54:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 8869341C4F Received: from mail-4323.proton.ch (mail-4323.proton.ch [185.70.43.23]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8869341C4F for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2022 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:54:02 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=notatether.com; s=protonmail; t=1659635657; x=1659894857; bh=Ub5aOSfqvXC6viqDDw5hTWt4jls66hhK/fp+DuFgEi8=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=TQRqmovgaiL3M/nMzlFZlb36blchfUOCyIL4DhpaXVJ0xowXfwo5A5y7wBgnMlIe8 Se3y3PCBIYJm+LL+cU6s5sFH31a6YKh/ku09mMahtva65q64dYhYgwq9hNrqr9OB6Y Smumf7O4ejl/cvETmckqmoGOJDzdUBHkIFYC2oixLsFJQj/QbpR2QjTXQTBkmdWtJJ MGlBK7e+KFgxedN5ZC0ciLrTgzWYlfINGbaq786QFmno9HzVp90+rByk3NRDQPD6YA kRyuW3LkDfS/r4yTtlR2DMIVeW+5RXBxYb38dnC4P3GAOEhKnHk/x+VT8eIUh125z6 U1k3u8VzIGW5g== To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Ali Sherief Reply-To: Ali Sherief Message-ID: <92xA8EvymL-T7scNgL9H7o7QMDO7P0q8yEl8aPk4v3KpdXiPUr4-h22-RskqnLTiQE_hD0BEvpLZFMTysTy9laszpC9t6PJDR5jBUQy_J8U=@notatether.com> In-Reply-To: <20220804121851.7e4zoqxaaolseazn@artanis> References: <4Lz70s3l79z4x2h7@mail-41103.protonmail.ch> <20220804121851.7e4zoqxaaolseazn@artanis> Feedback-ID: 34210769:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 18:06:02 +0000 Cc: "luke_bipeditor@dashjr.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: Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:54:22 -0000 My sincere apologies, the link returns a 404 (trailing dot). The correct li= nk to the BIP is https://github.com/ZenulAbidin/bips/blob/master/bip-notate= ther-signedmessage.mediawiki -Ali ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, August 4th, 2022 at 3:18 PM, Ali Sherief = wrote: > Hi, > > I have created a new BIP, called notatether-signedmessage. It can be view= ed at https://github.com/ZenulAbidin/bips/blob/master/bip-notatether-signed= message.mediawiki. > > For those who want a quick summary, it defines a step-by-step process for= signing and verifying messages from legacy, native/nested segwit, and tapr= oot addresses. It does not define a new signature format itself, except in = the case of Taproot. For those addresses, I have defined a signature format= that has 1 byte header/recID, 64 bytes signature, and 32 bytes x coordinat= e of a public key. This is required to run the BIP340 Schnorr verify algori= thm using only the signature - and the header byte is added for backwards c= ompatibility. Otherwise, it completely integrates BIP137 signatures. > > I am planning to move that format to its own BIP as soon as possible, in = lieu that it is unacceptable to define formats in an Informational BIP. > > Please leave your comments in this mailing list. CC'ing BIP editors. > > - Ali