+1 I'd participate.
Certain human/organizational limitations prevent things being said in
logged channels that sometimes can be shared in person. Sometimes
people break through misunderstandings in person, through either
informal mingling or the use of Chatham House rules. So I would also
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 9:46 PM Peter (Coinkite Inc) via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> [...] the various BIP-322 proposals never gained wide acceptance.
There's renewed interest in using BIP322 to validate signatures
related to work upgrading the Bitcoin-native Decentralized Identifier
Method (did:btcr)
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
