Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)

Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP)
[not found]   ` <20220719104725.ppic7jy4ghfieeap@artanis>

  2022-07-20 13:31       ` Peter (Coinkite Inc)
  
From: Ali Sherief @ 2022-07-20  4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[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?


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-07-20  4:10     ` [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP) Ali Sherief

  2022-07-20 21:50         ` Greg Sanders
                           ` (2 more replies)
  
From: Peter (Coinkite Inc) @ 2022-07-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ali Sherief;  bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4704 bytes --]

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 +0000, 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?
> 



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-07-20  4:10     ` [bitcoin-dev] Trying all address types in message signing verification (BIP) Ali Sherief

  2022-07-20 21:50         ` 
                           ` 
  
From: Peter (Coinkite Inc) @ 2022-07-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ali Sherief;  bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4704 bytes --]

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 +0000, 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?
> 



[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-07-20 13:31       ` Peter (Coinkite Inc)
  2022-07-20 21:50         ` Greg Sanders

  2022-07-23  4:28         ` Ryan Grant
  
From: Ali Sherief @ 2022-07-21  5:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter;  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) <peter@coinkite•com> 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 +0000, 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?



Owner and administrator of https://notatether.com - Run Tools & Apps Online or Buy an API Key


------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, July 20th, 2022 at 1:31 PM, Peter (Coinkite Inc) <peter@coinkite•com> 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 +0000, 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?


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-07-20 21:50         ` Greg Sanders

  2022-07-22 15:20             ` Ali Sherief
  
From: Craig Raw @ 2022-07-21  7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Greg Sanders, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Ali Sherief, Peter

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6204 bytes --]

> 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 <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 +0000, 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?
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7696 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-07-21  7:06           ` Craig Raw

  
From: Ali Sherief @ 2022-07-22 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Craig Raw;  bitcoin-dev, gsanders87, Peter

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6932 bytes --]

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 <craigraw@gmail•com> 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 <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 <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 +0000, 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9378 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2022-07-20 13:31       ` Peter (Coinkite Inc)
  2022-07-20 21:50         ` Greg Sanders
  2022-07-21  5:36         ` Ali Sherief

  
From: Ryan Grant @ 2022-07-23  4:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  Peter

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 9:46 PM Peter (Coinkite Inc) via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> 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/


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]