From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA985C013E for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D268586A for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:31:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hbgGvZl9WKsG for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:31:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:45 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mta.hdems.com (mta15.mta.hdems.com [52.199.63.174]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 288E085815 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mo.hdems.com (unknown [10.5.84.11]) by mta-c16-s3201.mta.hdems.com ('HDEMS') with ESMTPSA id 48XP263Lsjz2K1rbT for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 06:22:54 +0000 (UTC) X-HDEMS-MO-TENANT: garage.co.jp Received: from mail-lj1-f198.google.com (mail-lj1-f198.google.com. [209.85.208.198]) by gwsmtp.prod.mo.hdems.com with ESMTPS id gwsmtpd-trans-92f4c4d7-4ba1-45c1-ba48-5b24a81b250a for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2020 06:22:51 +0000 Received: by mail-lj1-f198.google.com with SMTP id f11so122277ljn.6 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:22:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=garage.co.jp; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=x/Wuzk6s4tEnaqGG7ql0m6OdpMHWfnYdPn31jAH1ks8=; b=Ef5RMb97XCx1s05hjW030afbrVL9j4rXMh4SNfDNC9oJbF0gj8BR5rWjFwKk7fIRDd FzN8jQ+mGvR0oPSZO5bOc0Wxz8QQKwtr/7dCCEzKyGJF8u43HIHYhr6xyWu9iH4lfZhx +huuDas/026h98br7dfOJ/yd208dYv3HXxPBE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=x/Wuzk6s4tEnaqGG7ql0m6OdpMHWfnYdPn31jAH1ks8=; b=koNNUZFUv8fHuosraPl7Rk+rpvQ335IBafiNElmIT7xsAjbnYPNglvg6cUWDxxxVr9 g0Bnv4EItT612EgU0wypmaGq5TdNO8MlOqIAVyMR2v2mvYFt30fePw1qGW41DyV69ODP J07dfzjb7pi5906Dfk6MaTn2i/nsT6FWCTKO/qE9CHPgMgH5OQ3IJ/vaxRr6pPq7hy0D AYg45wEAL8C8+9A9uHjgMMTYrfezW8WHYiV9C6O7Vn50ZmO4Oyg+cpJoUXgblgDlg5K6 ek37uDG+JQFxY2LrT799EFfj+Ah8QbI1ZnbriKPX6/d1LUs6Z8UexgTwvQWiHI78/Hyx ej3w== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ28wuKFFQoLnNa+KjSBIeZm5WrKW28XYeXzKcpsebwdM3mCkjbt TXHh39GKlsuLu37QONRdGk8YqIoeNHU4kNqqrGRO2YR/ewrltdEwzHj4SMzqINDz/0+boCfSe9u IYCT/zS5BfpHoMRR8a4KIgNpXHBnXUhOg78WML5uFpTksvvZLoNVa0wN+USHGP5TdmCJ4p2do+X ryHIni5ZeYywHLTceJ24lHfNu7i6gHIMtpIjkBwVgVnZL4x3sC/ctCseykSZPP+7u5nKSSe87NG Os5WLxz3b/U9EEtq1O+DhhKWBT1k5VgHCCu0+yAVQfIWBgJmfZIL6gqlu9XCY0YxsF981LGf1e6 jH2HkxtxRqxfxlSvruv0vPAD5w87 X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5111:: with SMTP id q17mr1040917lfb.51.1583302968103; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:22:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsT13eL0ADW5CAwklf1zcJ98B2HZaFanXBXxY0jbXEFXhv+au/QNHRxeqfdOLoRHRmrxAIGZbvRckX7KgSDKXo= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5111:: with SMTP id q17mr1040899lfb.51.1583302967561; Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:22:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Karl-Johan Alm Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 15:23:53 +0900 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: Kicking BIP-322 (message signing) into motion 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 06:31:43 -0000 Hello, I noticed recently that a PR to Bitcoin Core that pretty much touched everything my BIP-322 pull request touches (around the same complexity) was merged without a thought given to BIP-322 compatibility, despite the BIP-322 PR being open for 2x the time. I can only conclude from this that people dislike BIP-322 in its current form, which the 9 month old pull request stagnating can probably attest to. There are several things that I can do to make this a bit more appealing to people, which would hopefully kick the progress on this forward. I have already put in a non-trivial amount of energy and effort into maintaining the pull request as is, so I'd prefer if people were harsh and unfiltered in their criticism rather than polite and buffered, so I can beat this thing into shape (or abandon it, in the worst case). ============= 1. People use signmessage as a way to prove funds. This is misleading and should be discouraged; throw the sign message stuff out and replace it entirely with a prove funds system. I know in particular luke-jr is of this opinion, and Greg Maxwell in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16440#issuecomment-568194168 leans towards this opinion as well, it seems. ============= 2. Use a transaction rather than a new format; make the first input's txid the message hash to ensure the tx cannot be broadcasted. This has the benefit of being able to provide to an existing hardware wallet without making any modifications to its firmware. I think Mark Friedenbach and Johnson Lau are of this opinion, except Johnson Lau also suggests that the signature hash is modified, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#issuecomment-420040430 -- which defeats the benefit above since now hw wallets can no longer sign. Prusnak (I think he works at Trezor; apologies if I am mistaken) is against this idea, and proposes (3) below: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#issuecomment-420210488 ============= 3. Use Trezor style See https://github.com/trezor/trezor-mcu/issues/169 This has the benefit of already being adopted (which clearly BIP-322 is failing hard at right now), but has the drawback that we can no longer do *generic* signing; we are stuck with the exact same limitations as in the legacy system, which we kinda wanted to fix in the updated version. ============= 4. Introduce OP_MESSAGEONLY Quoting Johnson Lau at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#issuecomment-420421058 : """ OP_MESSAGEONLY means the script following the code would never be valid. For example, a scriptPubKey: OP_IF OP_MESSAGEONLY OP_ELSE OP_ENDIF OP_CHECKSIG For messaging purpose, OP_MESSAGEONLY is considered as OP_NOP and is ignored. A message could be signed with either key_m or key_s. For spending, only key_s is valid. I don't think it is a big problem to consume a op_code. If this is a real concern, I could modify it as follow: in message system, OP_RETURN will pop the top stack. If top stack is msg in hex, it is ignored. Otherwise, the script fails. """ ============= 5. Some other solution