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 7600DC0893 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:43:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B3D8615E for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:43:26 +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 nsXFndSS1V2p for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:43:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi1-f174.google.com (mail-oi1-f174.google.com [209.85.167.174]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 334EF86135 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:43:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-f174.google.com with SMTP id x13so14975991oic.5 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 06:43:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=v7Kkq0U5oQfK0KITJMFICdH/+jd7Wj2SqqAuOFcebMQ=; b=ePEovuJBoPTjF3qRTuT3D0gNT5sCj5UejiOxcOT2CSwzyFIqcIpA8J696T9tdPUNse V5DcARAgUG8GnH1Z49156FuUX7abP5NWEvp4zNx/t0kXmC/rhyLJ5Fi2BP2diSy/7HMY 7mY4AgMRDzDkOYJ5+FUn/pVICxLWrbY94Ie1O76y/2fmLZZaW5VVcAHB+PIQ3SZnno2H B/LQpWhlelxccrwP9v5hrJC8dL/yADNNVx+2k931FaSpwoPTtygjoMlCmxao2tkbke1d Wq3140DDqFBEPNSIaiTedNUgBb0dfAFt/CLpYAPIaOK55gnyTotvwgyWcdTAtm7VBEyW si4g== 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=v7Kkq0U5oQfK0KITJMFICdH/+jd7Wj2SqqAuOFcebMQ=; b=WsGPVr5nJ7di0TigrV1rj41CysgxsfRTwZ+ICtxoXz+9C7QYhdq8An7NWaFK0PPg7q 0KMh0UL/b9WoQO6oLJDylUwCFtdJAcfA0KtiORW+jI0jSUdnW/idwSZlduPxYuIye5RC qXs6o+3/H54jF65mnF7hnN+KSZhe1p6wsx3u3tMKJ6cg56nqFBIWIxMhgCOYLZ+W1t0+ 2Eq32Vw0J6j8DAaQhSaQ9ycac0jsGSvlbneumpye1SqrHFHNS2mq2Rn/PCiC6NrB9X0i ZuE5LQ8ngNqYLu1NUVTCTaNbVX3gNrV4xstctdsfxSwCv8SEwrn5XBv9HZDGxFs+Tq3T 01pg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336W0f5YMazDJuDg4atoiUi4ybbhCeJK61POI73FZ3K7DI85049 h9dsFJnRSK6FMmUszrUGuO0AISgkOAU43S0Or4wajOUEh/mA6Y/B X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz84m9aQEHKli162oVLKlQlUSq9jEAqmlHr66f+0JSjQ+Er2fhmaJMuxpjdkQssp2X8qxNhHNXl2ZAYrsWnUBo= X-Received: by 2002:aca:c4cd:: with SMTP id u196mr14888082oif.133.1608648203230; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 06:43:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: monokh Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:43:11 +0000 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b8e57005b70e9802" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:48:18 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Wallet Interface 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: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 14:43:26 -0000 --000000000000b8e57005b70e9802 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and rather focus on the spec. Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing efforts, relevant specs or use cases. ------------------------------ A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications ## Abstract This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a standard. ## Summary Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as follows in javascript: ``` { // Wallet Metadata wallet: { name: 'Bitcoin Core' }, // Request access to the wallet for the current host async enable: (), // Request addresses and signatures from wallet async request ({ method, params }) } ``` In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be exposed. ## Motivation Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications. Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of usable bitcoin applications. With a standardised wallet API: - Wallets have a clear API to implement - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice for users If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be developed more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This creates a positive feedback loop. ## Specification For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web applications running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily implemented in other contexts. ### General Rules - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always prompt the user for confirmation ### Types **UserDeniedError** An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied by the user Type: Error **Hex** Type: String Example: `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"` **Address** Address details Type: Object Example: ``` { "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs", "publicKey": "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a", "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0" } ``` ### API The wallet must implement the following methods. **enable** The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet. If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity. **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected. **request** The request method must take one parameter in the following format: ``` { "method": "wallet_methodName", "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"] } ``` For a list of mandatory methods see Table The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved. Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for confirmation On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the method table. **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected. **Mandatory methods** method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1, change = false`] return: `[ Address ]` error: UserDeniedError method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]` return: Signature `Hex` error: UserDeniedError method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]` return: `psbtBase64` error: UserDeniedError method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]` return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst` error: UserDeniedError ## Rationale The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other requests such as node RPC calls. **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?** The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is much more flexible to instead define an abstract format. **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, getUtxos, ... ?** A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usage. The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to do the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement these functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet. ## Security Implications Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally as the security and privacy of the user is at risk. ### Signing Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded behind confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked. ### Privacy Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys. Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet could protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to give the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow the option to expose only selected derivation paths. -monokh --000000000000b8e57005b70e9802 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi

This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to subm= it. The main intention is to define a simple interface that wallets and app= lications can agree on that would cover the vast majority of use cases. Thi= s can enable writing bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on th= e web that can be seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have impl= ementations of such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into = a promotion and rather focus on the spec.=C2=A0

Appreciate input fro= m the list. Please share if there are existing efforts, relevant specs or u= se cases.=C2=A0

------------------------------
=

A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applicatio= ns

## Abstract

This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets = and applications as a standard. =C2=A0

## Summary

Bitcoin wal= lets should expose their address derivation and signing functions to extern= al applications. The interface would be expressed as follows in javascript:=

```
{
// Wallet Metadata
wallet: {
name: 'Bitco= in Core'
},

// Request access to the wallet for the current= host
async enable: (),

// Request addresses and signatures fro= m wallet
async request ({ method, params })
}
```

In the w= eb context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a webpage, fo= r example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not intend to defi= ne any standards for how and where the interfaces should be exposed.
## Motivation

Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, = applications (web or otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interac= t. Generally only simple sends have been available. A more robust API that = introduces other requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.

= Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their= interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and main= tain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and uni= ntended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of us= able bitcoin applications.

With a standardised wallet API:

- = Wallets have a clear API to implement
- Applications have a clear expect= ation of wallet interface and behaviour
- Applications become agnostic t= o the wallet specifics, increasing choice for users

If more wallets = implement the specification, applications will be developed more confidentl= y by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This creates a positive f= eedback loop.

## Specification

For simplicity, the interface = is defined in the context of web applications running in the browser (JS) h= owever, they are simple enough to be easily implemented in other contexts.<= br>
### General Rules

- For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), w= allet software should always prompt the user for confirmation

### Ty= pes

**UserDeniedError**
An error type indicating that the applica= tion's request has been denied by the user
Type: Error

**Hex*= *
Type: String
Example: `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e6= 7c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`

**Address**
Address details
= Type: Object
Example:

```
{
"address": "bc= 1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs",
"publicKey": = "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a&qu= ot;,
"derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0"<= br>}
```

### API

The wallet must implement the following m= ethods.

**enable**

The enable call prompts the user for acces= s to the wallet.

If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Addres= s**` type) of the wallet. Typically the first external address to be used a= s an identity.

**`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request i= s rejected.

**request**

The request method must take one para= meter in the following format:

```
{
"method": &quo= t;wallet_methodName",
"params": ["foo", "= bar", "baz"]
}
```

For a list of mandatory meth= ods see Table

The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable`= has been resolved.

Sensitive requests that involve signing should a= lways prompt the user for confirmation

On success the request should= resolve to the response as defined in the method table.

**`UserDeni= edError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.

**Mandatory me= thods**

method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index =3D 0, numAddr= esses =3D 1, change =3D false`]
return: `[ Address ]`
error: UserDeni= edError

method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]`<= br>return: Signature `Hex`
error: UserDeniedError

method: `wallet= _signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]`
return: `psbt= Base64`
error: UserDeniedError

method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwor= k` params: `[]`
return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst`=
error: UserDeniedError

## Rationale

The purpose of the AP= I is to expose a set of commonly used wallet operations. In addition, it sh= ould be flexible enough to serve for other requests such as node RPC calls.=

**Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?** =
The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is= much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.

**Why are = the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, getUtxos, ... ?**<= br>A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usag= e. The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to = do the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement the= se functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.

#= # Security Implications

Great care should be taken when exposing wal= let functionality externally as the security and privacy of the user is at = risk.

### Signing

Operations that trigger signing using priva= te keys should be guarded behind confirmation screens where the user is ful= ly aware of the nature of the transaction. In the example of a PSBT signatu= re request, the outputs, the inputs and which key is being used should be c= learly marked.

### Privacy

Some api methods expose metadata a= bout the user, such as public keys. Depending on how privacy focused the wa= llet intends to be, the wallet could protect these behind a confirmation. C= ommonly the wallet just needs to give the origin access to all of its publi= c keys, however it could also allow the option to expose only selected deri= vation paths.

-monokh

--000000000000b8e57005b70e9802--