Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

[Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev]

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) beyond its current specification, to version 2.0.

  
https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot11-the-hague/blob/master/advance-readings/bip322-signature-suite.md
  https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

[Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev]

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  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 
>  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 
>>  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  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 +, 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 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

[Craig Raw via bitcoin-dev]

> 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  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 +, 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 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

[Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev]

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 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.

This is largely why I avoided basing my idea off of BIP-322. Not only does a 
BIP has a higher chance of acceptance the less aspects it modifies, but I feel 
that although its not urgent (such as, for example, the segwit deployment BIP), 
this BIP should be made as soon as possible. It's also why I avoided specifying 
anything about testnet or regtest address singing - thankfully, I have yet to 
see ayone sign messages from these networks.

> 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.

Yes, if it looks possible from the UX, chances are that its very 
straightforward to implement in code. That's why I'm not expecting any problems 
when I finally draft the BIP.

In my original plans, I said the verifier was going to try Legacy, Nested 
Segwit, and Native Segwit encodings in sequence, but now, I think this 
step-by-step procedure is unnecessary. The correct encoding can be guessed by 
looking at the address prefix:

- If it starts with a "1", attempt the Legacy encoding. (Fail verification if 
it does not yield the correct address).
- If it starts with a "3", attempt the Nested Segwit encoding. (Fail 
verification if it does not yield the correct address).
- If it starts with a "bc1", fetch the version number from the immediately 
following character, and attempt the Native Segwit encoding with that version 
number. (Fail verification if it does not yield the correct address).
- If it starts with any other prefix, fail verification.

In my opinion, the signing and verification processes have to be precisely 
defined in the BIP - to be exactly the same as it presently is, and then these 
additions - to ensure that the BIP clearly deescribes how signing and 
verification should be implemented today - in addition to "tomorrow" when the 
BIP is widely accepted.

> 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.

Since I already plan on adding a Python example for the signing and 
verification process, it will be a straightforward process to translate it to 
C++ without even minor interface/implementation difficulties.

Since I can't think of any more ways to streamline the BIP, I'm going to start 
a draft along these principles shortly.

- Ali

On Wednesday, July 20th, 2022 at 1:31 PM, Peter (Coinkite Inc) 
 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 +, Ali Sherief wrote:
>
> > [my third attempt at getting this message through. Surprisingly, I 

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

[Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev]

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  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 +, 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?
> >
>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

[Peter (Coinkite Inc) via bitcoin-dev]

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  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 +, 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?
> 




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev