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 BAA87AD9 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (mo.garage.hdemail.jp [46.51.242.127]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CD73224 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ip-10-217-1-36.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with SMTP id 2AA4014C0D9 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) X-Received: from unknown (HELO mo.garage.hdemail.jp) (127.0.0.1) by 0 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 X-Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-ma-postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF734C072 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) Received: from gw23.oz.hdemail.jp (ip-10-216-196-34.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal [10.216.196.34]) by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with ESMTP id 1A05014C0D9 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:29 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp) X-Received: from mail-qt0-f200.google.com (lb07.oz.hdemail.jp [54.238.57.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gw23.oz.hdemail.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21FE148C11D for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:38:28 +0900 (JST) X-Received: by mail-qt0-f200.google.com with SMTP id x20so5616128qtm.15 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SgzdPX1dd494cbzm15FIgahnmSHzQ8mxkcnVbu0auRM=; b=TRC13ggjy4tCUu7g1JLr3vdwKyM30fjiFatkkf4Z5Vg28gHIQlwOgaNGesSUdOIze6 t/ALpFP7vYO8N5S1IZMdhZ/PRGocHg6z4MCpZ8eV/ua8KYD5pip0ZSohsucr+RTQHVzB nlaYwTntLuiHEyFInzOevLXeDTTvqZcbAoUpoBbxLAob4Yv/fFsWTNocmmVBKFzAgnKB ms95uftZHebNA3mjMSrSovJ5mGsN0RFxPuLf1F02HKAHii30xxOFS9egqcD3uW7h3Jfb AgLoonr8CpA4XBM1uQUKZNAKYbSpvNqihAFdcIs1B46DKQBiHHNj70sgVpZY7zBeEqFx cucw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FwkSY80ZNiongMU2adZdUf20Y/dhheiS+t9MhYI6yZGS0MZLRg YrNo0nFEJQ0gEMTTDkF1CEcGonpWYoJJc+88lKdrbHI0gXzWN7kzz7YOZUg/8lRftkpKPmc4DID rARklUYMvHupSO4sGp2jQAP/tfsRfLPzDZ8tipv7I0cjzH4WMGGXnRaNoFWg7RVdPF7fGrjKoZr 4bOnnJcHf5uCkGckeUjZLz6hHZdcWT1lq2b98kSulGTOphMdNdJD2TFPuAmnjgowWX4JpndbYdq PA7A+DWbMRVeYwoM/QXPnRf62o7PbD/UZ5xUhuyahTpzj4dF1gdhCgj3abpqdZGfq5z7puvs+ni 5SjXmH9PEuwUCbH1tt8S1l5WPTs= X-Received: by 10.200.6.6 with SMTP id d6mr12003431qth.112.1521160707221; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELssIVWA/l7e4QFkhEfMQ276EkdU6nte4mUKpriWrKV1IQqRAHBlEiF5sSbdFqTLfBBotJ5JGJr6NOQDDKi0JIA= X-Received: by 10.200.6.6 with SMTP id d6mr12003413qth.112.1521160706907; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.12.176.3 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:38:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201803151414.06301.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201803141236.48869.luke@dashjr.org> <201803151414.06301.luke@dashjr.org> From: Karl Johan Alm Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:06 +0000 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] {sign|verify}message replacement 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: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:38:31 -0000 On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > Not necessarily specific UTXOs (that would contradict fungibility, as well as > be impossible for hot/cold wallet separation), but just to prove funds are > available. The current sign message cannot be used to prove present possession > of funds, only that you receive funds. By saying "not necessarily specific UTXOs", are you saying it may be spent outputs? I'm a little confused I think. On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Jim Posen wrote: > In this general signing-a-script context, I think a verifier might want to > see the time conditions under which it may be spent. The proof container > could include an optional nLockTime which defaults to 0 and nSequence which > defaults to 0xFFFF... Good point! >> I think it would just use the default (SIGHASH_ALL?) for simplicity. >> Is there a good reason to tweak it? > > I took another look and there should definitely be a byte appended to the > end of the sig so that the encoding checks pass, but I think it might as > well be a 0x00 byte since it's not actually a sighash flag. I think the sighash flag affects the outcome of the actual verification, but I could be mistaken. -Kalle.