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 C6326BD1 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:21:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com [209.85.214.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57493E0 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id t1so12428826ite.5 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:21:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=O5d1xPgQCnE/22E0ZvacQ40BWM/f8B00GeUlkfqwYOg=; b=i+Q2dVq6FaI8g5hjnQmybbYhKamPrwTg5dUrc2//Nl7KelGgcjBy3VM7+mN/+0Yhbe vcW3s493hEnql8CIX7nPOCMjUtMdSyEEns6VeRu/OvmCL2HJnn0WeNiRqmzplSQe9soM 0hXw9+Mnnen+DJJ7+wh9nTyxHmiffGlnhMZok46kUirUsx/d6Dz7TE676rsTJoc2yMs7 5RiepjyLfNSdkk452ZKrWeqVhVHkZG1Zs4cqxmBSdCGL+7FCh/OlIeYEpcX4AZtONHWr AVVygOmXOUOp4uf2zd0qH1ilXO4YHVp+ygACp6cBegJ6kTrivjvxVQLG4Ty7tSRYMLYW Mxqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O5d1xPgQCnE/22E0ZvacQ40BWM/f8B00GeUlkfqwYOg=; b=ADaYBPjGTuhNTxxsZ4t8xmdAJHVkqkGYriL0D1M6q7a6wtd9wd6DDu42Z3QbmQDYS/ cMU9ij+fJNETpWU+1A7BmdywSlixRKpv2R73N7xodBhvHW7cseTh4gIRJ/LaA3ZZpVPq aaXyaTBAJ/mCsAbhR0Ehqty9S8OWQmuj/H7kRrr9UgRn9UHVPJXLL03Ym9Oxo4f1lnSW hVjMrePz1yO+DkB0Rcft/jRhpc97n/VuYcqZ5IrvNTVNp8rNfInFs0W1SDvGKhojzVDG jSjSbQZRAfjICiO/65L0oNgCS3zmk1twfajUzNh9FG2V1eOj35m8Z61NLTkRLpqU94jZ 1JVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJe/uWfoNCxpkhf4/Rs3Qi7B0K//Z5kfJ1cfsqpOHL7coWM4m6V rgZdZOcit/vbqWtzmo+ZLZhjZ8B0m7IGwIQryiVVFQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosbJQALV9/Hu7jB6fc6EK/1tBBwDnk8qQPysXM7gwSZur8JhtJU3BHxwmrzKea9EdptLGRHH5yjCdGBr6rfJ6I= X-Received: by 10.36.135.199 with SMTP id f190mr14032450ite.133.1513898484615; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:21:24 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.31.141 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:21:24 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: DKBryant@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <201712212309.07243.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201712212309.07243.luke@dashjr.org> From: Dan Bryant Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:21:24 -0600 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:32:15 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP for Legacy Sign Verify functions 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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:21:25 -0000 --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 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
Thank you... I've updated.

>=C2= =A0New schemes should probably NOT be base= d on the current one.
Fair enough... I still = think there are those who would still like an existing sign/verify BIP to r= eference.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr &= lt;luke@dashjr.org= > wrote:
On Thursday 21 Decembe= r 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> https://github.com/bri= anddk/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 an= d
comparing it to the address provided.

> Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been > published in a BIP.=C2=A0 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--