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 643266FCE for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 23:43:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr1-f51.google.com (mail-wr1-f51.google.com [209.85.221.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 944BF7F0 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 23:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f51.google.com with SMTP id x12-v6so22543506wru.8 for ; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 16:43:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=iB2mnCkuqXUB+te6tCdgsA1+1xwRU36Fan1TTpiHVcM=; b=V9f9Mlxr4aw2uepr4YlbEDK7WaD99p0qsHqEr4I8p5SWJKxvIf6UrW6DyNjrCuvb0f neLR6WZleyAmfPxrGs/Di2XuwKtlrvTMXLs366SjkG4GfqdQTpih9fi0iK/oFJM3imSo SrfztgjEgWk2adGUrIPbo1Jt2qkQ5XCnEgITSB5SOF0okjuWbH8eSEg7+Wg+g65J2tXh 5EvtNdGTGMOmmelsRJdmIueRQviG7/iqpG1ZwWVGJcFwnGGK916uoDx30vyjv3b++Nw4 mOU3bmP0MzxMaHsKCV0BuqOqrtADPmIn8dtRJsKBOozfllFcRuI6/VR8kRkfd9v0QAp8 juZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=iB2mnCkuqXUB+te6tCdgsA1+1xwRU36Fan1TTpiHVcM=; b=iIOacVrUUeBIUTxJPKICfar+ve+54JMXoyJ+HsTn1JoesvBY9mrGTalt6PWtHtbkxh 85AQg0iUmq5eBlDmFGMQaSB2A4z/3TM0JUY5tFnnAObhJv3PyC/1LlGKX9XyCtkFdT29 8Vekngh1RTZdIluXo9pdi7yhbmDd8Ih6ATjGtBbXSa1f49HAoIY2zHz29ac1gbuRjKea rELjD2M8SJ/KnyGVxAnZ3FsLV1uPbieLZ4GS7YcVrj4w2q2NB3Pm+dFSx/vVQf+lfTb9 PF1WR6JRO++PY6xc7jzaUzF+4Yc1tgbBpzrleSWbyB6LPg1NZfK2Rp8DKNRAawxg9esR /pHw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoiW3dl1pt4ko4eEgcSQQ5eYyUKxF/7/rqwnTxAyhOkLl3KOFjMd ZdVTGzCHpD+h5x91/bnG1JuqSjM4ZRhG6rVS3R4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62dAEe9JhYonweHZB8KviFF23BNx5JggaOd9MD3WEkD6VErxVOSbE5MtIrJcyhRcGH3LE/23YC1sUiM8UQlpY0= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4706:: with SMTP id y6-v6mr17283516wrq.256.1539042188974; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 16:43:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: James MacWhyte Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 16:42:57 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?44GK44Gu44GL44Gh44GK?= , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f7de330577c02ef5" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 23:57:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MultiSig request URI proposal 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: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 23:43:11 -0000 --000000000000f7de330577c02ef5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello! A URI is useful as a standard for one-way communication, but on-chain multisig requires many steps. multiple parties need to provide signatures, and one party needs to aggregate all the signatures and publish the transaction. This URI scheme would allow one to pass along a raw transaction in one direction, but once the signer has signed the transaction, what are they supposed to do with it? You might be thinking you could include a callback URL, like BIP72 does, so the signer can pass the signed transaction back to the organizer. However, BIP72 was created as a backwards-compatible extension to BIP70, which was designed for one-way communication. Since there is no way to be backwards compatible here, there is no need to limit yourself to the URI system. Instead of creating a new URI and using it for something it is not suited for, it would be better (in my opinion) to find a different method that is better suited for two-way communication. On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:52 PM =E3=81=8A=E3=81=AE=E3=81=8B=E3=81=A1=E3=81= =8A via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi. > > I have an idea that subject. > > There are already BIP 21. > But Multisig request URI is non exist. > > My idea is below: > > bitcoin-sigreq://{{rawtx}}?{{param}} > > rawtx: raw transaction (encoded by base64) > param: > - pubkey=3D{{public key for sign key pair}} > - hd_wallet_position=3D{{path for HD wallet position}} > > This URI scheme is used for multisig request from website to user's local > wallet. > > How do you think ? > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000f7de330577c02ef5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello!

A URI is useful as a standard fo= r one-way communication, but on-chain multisig requires many steps. multipl= e parties need to provide signatures, and one party needs to aggregate all = the signatures and publish the transaction. This URI scheme would allow one= to pass along a raw transaction in one direction, but once the signer has = signed the transaction, what are they supposed to do with it? You might be = thinking you could include a callback URL, like BIP72 does, so the signer c= an pass the signed transaction back to the organizer. However, BIP72 was cr= eated as a backwards-compatible extension to BIP70, which was designed for = one-way communication. Since there is no way to be backwards compatible her= e, there is no need to limit yourself to the URI system. Instead of creatin= g a new URI and using it for something it is not suited for, it would be be= tter (in my opinion) to find a different method that is better suited for t= wo-way communication.

= On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:52 PM =E3=81=8A=E3=81=AE=E3=81=8B=E3=81=A1=E3=81= =8A via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi.

I have an i= dea that subject.

There are already BIP 21.
<= div>But Multisig request URI is non exist.

My idea= is below:

bitcoin-sigreq://{{rawtx}}?{{param}}

rawtx: raw transaction (encoded by base64)
param:
- pubkey=3D{{public key for sign key pair}}
- h= d_wallet_position=3D{{path for HD wallet position}}

This URI scheme is used for multisig request from website to user's l= ocal wallet.

How do you think ?
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000f7de330577c02ef5--