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
|
Return-Path: <thomas.kerin@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0F41018
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:51:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com
[209.85.217.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE5814B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:51:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbvu2 with SMTP id vu2so3599012lbb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=2Z/IhbWy+SJELm4sV4zkTIwxSUDTGpvtrE5oUXmru5U=;
b=MnmylPwRRxYE39sp0YK+hH1iAVjs42NA2b0URitrz3/VM4IlnMUhZZxkmaIDoTxTu2
zP+Dp90rKy0xVyf07APew+tSKd6iac9GJwuNjKfWYtt6XfaTpOuJ697Q8NfvLPIePzH7
I+TlXxggdJ2gcgtAYIHuezlr3X/WvkpqNYVfG4FieYEdgB/a3tOtD6w7edIIUrK1+5Ae
HVwjtdeOqTQc1DHlha1yecbxq/1p5sva0M9F+bPCg1Gxudh4Hg03VIASTNE+Z6Y5rel4
8VCWEDB072c3oJXJSiJ/G6EuyQa+EKqtboVG64Cy4S7I9Qgv7Mg802AvYQk0sxUHA0JY
7S8g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.120.164 with SMTP id ld4mr17106018lab.84.1442274687603;
Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.167.103 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.167.103 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c5f5105e2d5b9cc1873f84cb0b172285@rainloop.aaawop.com>
References: <c5f5105e2d5b9cc1873f84cb0b172285@rainloop.aaawop.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:51:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHv+tb5ym=bEdGGAYGqKqNXfVCESmt924i+vajavprnBrbhvbg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Kerin <thomas.kerin@gmail.com>
To: "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io" <arthur@bitcoin-fr.io>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:51:30 -0000
--089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think it would be more akin to bip70. I have a similar proposal, largely
already written up around this. I'm very interested in having this for
multi signature wallets.
On 14 Sep 2015 8:06 pm, "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> I realized that there isn't any way to ask for a signature (or to verify a
> message) as easily you can do when requesting a payment using a bitcoin URI
> scheme (BIP0021).
> I think a URI scheme to use the signing tools in bitcoin core might be
> useful, and with a proper consensus it could become available in most
> bitcoin clients who already support message signing/verifying and payment
> url (or QRCode) and enable new uses of bitcoin signatures.
> A way to gain proper consensus is going through a BIP, so that's why I'm
> here: to present my idea publicly before going any further (draft BIP and
> reference implementation).
> Some thoughts
> - like BIP0021: "Bitcoin clients MUST NOT act on URIs without getting the
> user's authorization." so signing requires the user to manually approve the
> process
> - it could use the same URI scheme than BIP0021 with an additional
> parameter (ex: signaction=<verify/sign>) or use another one like BIP121
> (ex: btcsig:)
> PS : I'll also post a topic in "Development & Technical Discussion"
> section on Bitcointalk
>
> --
> Arthur Bouquet
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr">I think it would be more akin to bip70. I have a similar pro=
posal, largely already written up around this. I'm very interested in h=
aving this for multi signature wallets.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 14 Sep 2015 8:06 pm, "Arthur - <a href=
=3D"http://bitcoin-fr.io">bitcoin-fr.io</a> via bitcoin-dev" <<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a>> wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><u></u><div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:=
13px">Hi,<div></div><div>I realized that there isn't any way to ask for=
a signature (or to verify a message) as easily you can do when requesting =
a payment using a bitcoin URI scheme (BIP0021).</div><div>I think a URI sch=
eme to use the signing tools in bitcoin core might be useful, and with a pr=
oper consensus it could become available in most bitcoin clients who alread=
y support message signing/verifying and payment url (or QRCode) and enable =
new uses of bitcoin signatures.</div><div></div><div>A way to gain proper c=
onsensus is going through a BIP, so that's why I'm here: to present=
my idea publicly before going any further (draft BIP and reference impleme=
ntation).</div><div></div><div>Some thoughts</div><div>=C2=A0- like BIP0021=
: "Bitcoin clients MUST NOT act on URIs without getting the user's=
authorization." so signing requires the user to manually approve the =
process</div><div>=C2=A0- it could use the same URI scheme than BIP0021 wit=
h an additional parameter (ex: signaction=3D<verify/sign>) or use ano=
ther one like BIP121 (ex: btcsig:)</div><div></div><div>PS : I'll also =
post a topic in "Development & Technical Discussion" section =
on Bitcointalk<br>=C2=A0</div><div>--</div><div>Arthur Bouquet</div></div><=
/div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
--089e012291126c5d2d051fbdbe88--
|
