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
|
Return-Path: <dkbryant@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6326BD1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:21:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com (mail-it0-f45.google.com
[209.85.214.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57493E0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:21:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id t1so12428826ite.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:21:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=O5d1xPgQCnE/22E0ZvacQ40BWM/f8B00GeUlkfqwYOg=;
b=i+Q2dVq6FaI8g5hjnQmybbYhKamPrwTg5dUrc2//Nl7KelGgcjBy3VM7+mN/+0Yhbe
vcW3s493hEnql8CIX7nPOCMjUtMdSyEEns6VeRu/OvmCL2HJnn0WeNiRqmzplSQe9soM
0hXw9+Mnnen+DJJ7+wh9nTyxHmiffGlnhMZok46kUirUsx/d6Dz7TE676rsTJoc2yMs7
5RiepjyLfNSdkk452ZKrWeqVhVHkZG1Zs4cqxmBSdCGL+7FCh/OlIeYEpcX4AZtONHWr
AVVygOmXOUOp4uf2zd0qH1ilXO4YHVp+ygACp6cBegJ6kTrivjvxVQLG4Ty7tSRYMLYW
Mxqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references
:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=O5d1xPgQCnE/22E0ZvacQ40BWM/f8B00GeUlkfqwYOg=;
b=ADaYBPjGTuhNTxxsZ4t8xmdAJHVkqkGYriL0D1M6q7a6wtd9wd6DDu42Z3QbmQDYS/
cMU9ij+fJNETpWU+1A7BmdywSlixRKpv2R73N7xodBhvHW7cseTh4gIRJ/LaA3ZZpVPq
aaXyaTBAJ/mCsAbhR0Ehqty9S8OWQmuj/H7kRrr9UgRn9UHVPJXLL03Ym9Oxo4f1lnSW
hVjMrePz1yO+DkB0Rcft/jRhpc97n/VuYcqZ5IrvNTVNp8rNfInFs0W1SDvGKhojzVDG
jSjSbQZRAfjICiO/65L0oNgCS3zmk1twfajUzNh9FG2V1eOj35m8Z61NLTkRLpqU94jZ
1JVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJe/uWfoNCxpkhf4/Rs3Qi7B0K//Z5kfJ1cfsqpOHL7coWM4m6V
rgZdZOcit/vbqWtzmo+ZLZhjZ8B0m7IGwIQryiVVFQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosbJQALV9/Hu7jB6fc6EK/1tBBwDnk8qQPysXM7gwSZur8JhtJU3BHxwmrzKea9EdptLGRHH5yjCdGBr6rfJ6I=
X-Received: by 10.36.135.199 with SMTP id f190mr14032450ite.133.1513898484615;
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:21:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.31.141 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:21:24 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: DKBryant@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <201712212309.07243.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAAUFj100ULfTbEorSK2PF5nvW-R_TCMOiboBBEMj+eS5upgU8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<201712212309.07243.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Dan Bryant <dkbryant@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:21:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAUFj127=fNaPh+RtGgTbqDfxS=+ihCwDDWhkRpvdRSLtRf7xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:32:15 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP for Legacy Sign Verify functions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 23:21:25 -0000
--94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Thank you... I've updated.
> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.
Fair enough... I still think there are those who would still like an
existing sign/verify BIP to reference.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 December 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/
> bip-0xyz.mediawiki
>
> It's not even correct... Your first "verify message" step is not possible;
> you
> can't get a public key from an address.
>
> What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key
> recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that
> and
> comparing it to the address provided.
>
> > Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been
> > published in a BIP. My proposal is simply to provide a reference point
> for
> > future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.
>
> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.
>
> Luke
>
--94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Thank you... I've updated.<div><br></div><div>>=C2=
=A0<span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">New schemes should probably NOT be base=
d on the current one.</span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br=
></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Fair enough... I still =
think there are those who would still like an existing sign/verify BIP to r=
eference.</span></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote">On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>=
></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0=
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thursday 21 Decembe=
r 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> <a href=3D"https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/bip-=
0xyz.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bri=
anddk/<wbr>bips/blob/legacysignverify/<wbr>bip-0xyz.mediawiki</a><br>
<br>
It's not even correct... Your first "verify message" step is =
not possible; you<br>
can't get a public key from an address.<br>
<br>
What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key<br>
recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that an=
d<br>
comparing it to the address provided.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
> Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been<b=
r>
> published in a BIP.=C2=A0 My proposal is simply to provide a reference=
point for<br>
> future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.<br>
<br>
</span>New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
--94eb2c033ffa66d0400560e1f5ec--
|
