That's actually a good idea. Perhaps I can move the algorithms (of BIP137) and
stuff to Bitcoin Wiki, and then convert the BIP to strictly a "Taproot message
signing BIP".
Even though I already know the chances of such a BIP being numbered is low, at
least the most important part will be accomplished already (get everybody to
use BIP137, and later once BIP322 is finished make people use that).
I ultimately prefer that everyone should use BIP322 eventually, though it
should have some kind of RFC2440-like format for maximum user-friendliness.
Perhaps bit by bit, the message sanitization can be introduced as well.
- Ali
On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 12:12 PM, Pavol Rusnak <st...@satoshilabs.com> wrote:
> Hi Ali!
>
> Nice work. Since it seems this is a strict superset of BIP137, why not just
> focus on things that you are adding (Taproot) while saying your BIP is an
> expansion of BIP137?
>
> Your approach make it unnecessarily hard to figure out whether you are
> changing anything in handling of ECDSA signature types or not. If it was
> clearly stated you are just expanding BIP137 and removes everything that’s
> already described in BIP137, it would be much more obvious to everyone.
>
> On Thu 4. 8. 2022 at 17:49, Ali Sherief via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have created a new BIP, called notatether-signedmessage. It can be viewed
>> at
>> https://github.com/ZenulAbidin/bips/blob/master/bip-notatether-signedmessage.mediawiki.
>>
>> For those who want a quick summary, it defines a step-by-step process for
>> signing and verifying messages from legacy, native/nested segwit, and
>> taproot addresses. It does not define a new signature format itself, except
>> in the case of Taproot. For those addresses, I have defined a signature
>> format that has 1 byte header/recID, 64 bytes signature, and 32 bytes x
>> coordinate of a public key. This is required to run the BIP340 Schnorr
>> verify algorithm using only the signature - and the header byte is added for
>> backwards compatibility. Otherwise, it completely integrates BIP137
>> signatures.
>>
>> I am planning to move that format to its own BIP as soon as possible, in
>> lieu that it is unacceptable to define formats in an Informational BIP.
>>
>> Please leave your comments in this mailing list. CC'ing BIP editors.
>>
>> - Ali
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> --
>
> Best Regards / S pozdravom,
>
> Pavol "stick" Rusnak
> Co-Founder, SatoshiLabs
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
