Well, if there are wallets that are already verifying BIP137 signatures, a
universal BIP that encompasses all signatures would also have to check for
BIP137 signatures obviously. Can't have an all-encompassing BIP that excludes
some signature types.
Fortunately, as is the case for my original proposal, only the verification
algorithm needs to be adjusted to identify BIP137 signatures. The signing part
can just place the address and whatever signature it makes inside the message.
I have studied BIP137 today and it looks like it only changes the signature
payload, not the address, so any BIP made to address this problem must also
take into account that the signature may be in different formats.
Does anyone know if BIP322 is being used in any wallet, for reference?
On Thursday, July 21st, 2022 at 7:06 AM, Craig Raw <craig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I do not know of any "verifiers" that will accept the above
>> signature
>
> Sparrow verifies this signature.
>
> The approach used is to convert the message and signature to a public key,
> trying first BIP137 and then the approach used by Electrum (they differ in
> treatment of the signature header for segwit P2SH). The script type is
> extracted from the provided address and compared against the address
> constructed with the public key using the same script type. i.e. There is no
> need to iterate through all script types, since the script type is implicitly
> provided in the address.
>
> Craig
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:51 PM Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Please see BIP322
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, 5:46 PM Peter (Coinkite Inc) via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ali.
>>>
>>>> This BIP does not replace, supersede, or obsolete BIPs 173 or 322. My
>>>> proposal is simply going to standardize the practice of placing the segwit
>>>> address into the address field, and does not require alterations to the
>>>> message signing format like those BIPs.
>>>
>>> COLDCARD makes signatures exacly like that, when told to sign with a segwit
>>> address:
>>>
>>> % ckcc msg -s Hello
>>> Hello
>>> bc1qzeacswvlulg0jngad9gmtkvdp9lwum42wwzdu5
>>> HxuuWQwjw0417fLV9L0kWbt7w9XOIWKhHMhjXhyXTczcSozGTXM4knqdISiYbbmqSRXqI5mNTWH9qkDoqZTpnPc=
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, I do not know of any "verifiers" that will accept the above
>>> signature, but there is no alternative since the various BIP-322 proposals
>>> never gained wide acceptance.
>>>
>>> Bitcoin Core does not support verifying that message, even though the UX
>>> makes it look possible. In effect segwit features never got implemented to
>>> that depth in Core. It's sad because the community is not maintaining core
>>> (Core?) features to the same depth as Satoshi did when he was active in the
>>> project.
>>>
>>>> PS. I am pretty sure that there is a BIP for the original signing method -
>>>> what is its number?
>>>
>>> My understanding that the original approach was directly from Satoshi
>>> himself when the original client was written. It has never been codified in
>>> a BIP as far as I know.
>>>
>>> A related issue the the "ascii armor" that is sometimes used. It's a little
>>> like RFC2440 <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2440.txt> but newline-treatment
>>> isn't defined well enough for good interoperability, in my personal
>>> experience.
>>>
>>> So in summary... yes a "defacto" BIP is needed and useful to do, in my
>>> opinion. Then Core should be updated to support it as well.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> @DocHEX || Coinkite || PGP: A3A31BAD 5A2A5B10
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 04:10:09AM +0000, Ali Sherief wrote:
>>>> [my third attempt at getting this message through. Surprisingly, I managed
>>>> to send this at the second try with the correct SMTP, From, To and all,
>>>> but maybe it was caught in GreyListing (protonmail).]
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking about creating a BIP to address the lack of standardization
>>>> for Segwit message signatures, but I want some advice before proceeding.
>>>>
>>>> The current state of affairs is that the wallets that do support signing
>>>> and verifying a bitcoin message can only sign legacy addresses. It is
>>>> technically possible to sign and verify segwit addresses, since ECDSA only
>>>> depends on the public key (hence why you need a private key to sign
>>>> messages).
>>>>
>>>> However, because there is no generally-accepted standard for signing
>>>> segwit messages, the wallets that do support this feature simply insert
>>>> the segwit address into the address field. Verification also only works
>>>> using the procedure on that specific wallet software, if only because the
>>>> conventional tools for verifying messages attempt to reconstruct a legacy
>>>> address only.
>>>>
>>>> This BIP is not going to enforce anything, it's just going to set
>>>> guidelines for writing a message signing and verification procedure.
>>>>
>>>> This BIP does not replace, supersede, or obsolete BIPs 173 or 322. My
>>>> proposal is simply going to standardize the practice of placing the segwit
>>>> address into the address field, and does not require alterations to the
>>>> message signing format like those BIPs.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, in the verification part, the following address hashing
>>>> algorithms will be tried in sequence in an attempt to reconstruct the
>>>> address in the signed message:
>>>> - P2PKH (legacy address)
>>>> - P2WPKH-P2SH (nested segwit)
>>>> - P2WPKH with version from 0 to MAX_WITNESS_VERSION (covers native segwit
>>>> with version 0 as well as future native segwit address types such as
>>>> Taproot) - where MAX_WITNESS_VERSION is the maximum supported witness
>>>> version by the bech32 encoding.
>>>>
>>>> The verification procedure stops if any of these hashes yield the correct
>>>> address, and fails if all of the above methods fail to reproduce the
>>>> address in the signed message.
>>>>
>>>> In the signing procedure, the only modification is the insertion of the
>>>> segwit address in place of the legacy address in the signed message.
>>>>
>>>> If this BIP is approved, it does not require any changes to existing
>>>> signed messages, and the original sign/verify algorithms will continue to
>>>> interoperate with this improved sign/verify algorithm, without any action
>>>> necessary from the developers.
>>>>
>>>> So as you can see, this is the entire framework of the BIP I plan to
>>>> draft. There is no need for any auxilliary feature additions into this
>>>> BIP. I just want to hear the mailing list's advice about how I should
>>>> draft such a BIP.
>>>>
>>>> - Ali
>>>>
>>>> PS. I am pretty sure that there is a BIP for the original signing method -
>>>> what is its number?
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
