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
> 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
Hi Peter,
> 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
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
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
