Hi Ali! Nice work. Since it seems this is a strict superset of BIP137, why not just focus on things that you are adding (Taproot) while saying your BIP is an expansion of BIP137?
Your approach make it unnecessarily hard to figure out whether you are changing anything in handling of ECDSA signature types or not. If it was clearly stated you are just expanding BIP137 and removes everything that’s already described in BIP137, it would be much more obvious to everyone. On Thu 4. 8. 2022 at 17:49, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I have created a new BIP, called notatether-signedmessage. It can be > viewed at > https://github.com/ZenulAbidin/bips/blob/master/bip-notatether-signedmessage.mediawiki > . > > For those who want a quick summary, it defines a step-by-step process for > signing and verifying messages from legacy, native/nested segwit, and > taproot addresses. It does not define a new signature format itself, except > in the case of Taproot. For those addresses, I have defined a signature > format that has 1 byte header/recID, 64 bytes signature, and 32 bytes x > coordinate of a public key. This is required to run the BIP340 Schnorr > verify algorithm using only the signature - and the header byte is added > for backwards compatibility. Otherwise, it completely integrates BIP137 > signatures. > > I am planning to move that format to its own BIP as soon as possible, in > lieu that it is unacceptable to define formats in an Informational BIP. > > Please leave your comments in this mailing list. CC'ing BIP editors. > > - Ali > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol "stick" Rusnak Co-Founder, SatoshiLabs
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
