1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
|
Return-Path: <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34259C013E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD5F20415
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:10:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id jJB1D2rRVnXc
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:07:34 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mta65.mta.hdems.com (mta65.mta.hdems.com [3.112.23.32])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9556A20404
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:10:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mo.hdems.com (unknown [10.5.20.193])
by mta65.mta.hdems.com ('HDEMS') with ESMTPSA id 48XPvy2czPz2K1rWf
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 4 Mar 2020 07:02:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-HDEMS-MO-TENANT: garage.co.jp
Received: from mail-lf1-f70.google.com (mail-lf1-f70.google.com.
[209.85.167.70]) by gwsmtp.prod.mo.hdems.com with ESMTPS id
gwsmtpd-trans-c18db0d8-909a-43ea-aed1-bd08585fad12
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 07:02:36 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-f70.google.com with SMTP id a1so370871lfr.16
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:02:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=garage.co.jp; s=google;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=x/ms1XNUwm3ZxuKetZQJuckXpjnrpRBFqbykfIqm5ik=;
b=oeKOZQ+1QMVVoH82okGnsUaFHzpDgkjJOJjcmR+2SY8mt+IvMMRkR98KrQOzkDfoVB
GHrVvUtf/UZ7s7wXKEAWeOJxwEuQSC8TrrOAREq7FFNjmbKc/tHtJlVlaAC+EMM3HZGP
cwlgASvjYg1lBgTK8CnVIpg/8WiLHJBUFPD/s=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=x/ms1XNUwm3ZxuKetZQJuckXpjnrpRBFqbykfIqm5ik=;
b=Tvbg7EeRAerEeV5pKGkgcxt4K5sXIZw4ZEauWauddMja0uCTK5K9MuOSIqP2E28tHR
YvWlAr/K+B2aZslIeSq77Hd8iFtO56VFtaRfZTR9+9Af4S5kHKRTBK+jzRP20BYdtbez
qR02GFGXUHJo2NCHbOlz3XWQZwrSZ4RCUqkYbL0GNYDS4J6Bu9MMN89wQWAJ1yQt8bh2
O0ZuCzn6MGpxRBNjXrN3p3i+oxX97/kw283Yb8JmTiB/UgQkagVAqiah4I7DFKdIEeNE
4YsiweESlJHiBWN2dyhTjSrg9occmNUqvC/sPJMFNz1pm0PoxkwHC3uOuzN3XwEa5s2D
wspA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3gX+FotHp7qgehGgGWJKTKeP5nzZqTxrUs/QNz7LckKq5a4Caa
26wyiEOvWbc5vgMhFTjv0jI0d8ZLRHoQvjhPnaK3PTwNFcjywfyYP0sXyJKscXQza6YR52Lgua+
bu+mkXEuv3aqvfXOT9LF7D66AcHO+t1DKp62annRn5yeyigrn/fjZ5KYrGnAgcpvcMzAnWrJFxN
w+jGVIXR5mH/87NUOZxgd9aplwsVllOCCK/wPVpC4pN566csuW8OlidGbNu1RNzZpNJSpBDibkn
4sCmyvkC/8Cjz3aVq15mFHMV7yWKgipaNHsHfXm+PraGf8GDXTFrCQZaq7+B8oa5qNY4A7TFsD7
6kk98tJ99UILX2pMSV087h+zBwER
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8651:: with SMTP id i17mr1079495ljj.121.1583305349182;
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:02:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuh8GIfTbWnbZW1AIFduGwDkUiMiiAbqW2iaoaS6GeWiq4ouOOM/oeAsSqskDW/J6sTVj03YTWWQO6YiKAIJC4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8651:: with SMTP id i17mr1079476ljj.121.1583305348717;
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 23:02:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALJw2w4ENV3y3Ufu=YRquDNwvQnewcwGHOe1njw8-ztNXJF-XQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALJw2w4ENV3y3Ufu=YRquDNwvQnewcwGHOe1njw8-ztNXJF-XQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 16:03:34 +0900
Message-ID: <CALJw2w5h=rdzhy+uVFs6w5qLe4hT+hfkdqOz6QkW9+cx_pzkjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC: Kicking BIP-322 (message signing) into motion
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 07:10:16 -0000
I forgot one:
=============
5. The current BIP itself is poorly written and/or unnecessarily
complex: e.g. remove the multi-proof support, and/or remove the
extensibility stuff for a future proof-of-funds extension, and/or
focus solely on the generic sign message stuff.
=============
6. Some other solution
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:23 PM Karl-Johan Alm
<karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I noticed recently that a PR to Bitcoin Core that pretty much touched
> everything my BIP-322 pull request touches (around the same
> complexity) was merged without a thought given to BIP-322
> compatibility, despite the BIP-322 PR being open for 2x the time. I
> can only conclude from this that people dislike BIP-322 in its current
> form, which the 9 month old pull request stagnating can probably
> attest to.
>
> There are several things that I can do to make this a bit more
> appealing to people, which would hopefully kick the progress on this
> forward. I have already put in a non-trivial amount of energy and
> effort into maintaining the pull request as is, so I'd prefer if
> people were harsh and unfiltered in their criticism rather than polite
> and buffered, so I can beat this thing into shape (or abandon it, in
> the worst case).
>
> =============
> 1. People use signmessage as a way to prove funds. This is misleading
> and should be discouraged; throw the sign message stuff out and
> replace it entirely with a prove funds system.
>
> I know in particular luke-jr is of this opinion, and Greg Maxwell in
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16440#issuecomment-568194168
> leans towards this opinion as well, it seems.
>
> =============
> 2. Use a transaction rather than a new format; make the first input's
> txid the message hash to ensure the tx cannot be broadcasted. This has
> the benefit of being able to provide to an existing hardware wallet
> without making any modifications to its firmware.
>
> I think Mark Friedenbach and Johnson Lau are of this opinion, except
> Johnson Lau also suggests that the signature hash is modified, see
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#issuecomment-420040430 --
> which defeats the benefit above since now hw wallets can no longer
> sign.
>
> Prusnak (I think he works at Trezor; apologies if I am mistaken) is
> against this idea, and proposes (3) below:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#issuecomment-420210488
>
> =============
> 3. Use Trezor style
>
> See https://github.com/trezor/trezor-mcu/issues/169
>
> This has the benefit of already being adopted (which clearly BIP-322
> is failing hard at right now), but has the drawback that we can no
> longer do *generic* signing; we are stuck with the exact same
> limitations as in the legacy system, which we kinda wanted to fix in
> the updated version.
>
> =============
> 4. Introduce OP_MESSAGEONLY
>
> Quoting Johnson Lau at
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/725#issuecomment-420421058 :
> """
> OP_MESSAGEONLY means the script following the code would never be
> valid. For example, a scriptPubKey:
>
> OP_IF OP_MESSAGEONLY <key_m> OP_ELSE <key_s> OP_ENDIF OP_CHECKSIG
>
> For messaging purpose, OP_MESSAGEONLY is considered as OP_NOP and is
> ignored. A message could be signed with either key_m or key_s.
>
> For spending, only key_s is valid.
>
> I don't think it is a big problem to consume a op_code. If this is a
> real concern, I could modify it as follow: in message system,
> OP_RETURN will pop the top stack. If top stack is msg in hex, it is
> ignored. Otherwise, the script fails.
> """
>
> =============
> 5. Some other solution
|
