[BIP322] remove empty message requirement for full (proof-of-funds) proofs #1352

1. 
   ZenulAbidin commented at 4:11 am on August 13, 2022: contributor

   Signed messages must be displayed in , however for that to be possible, there must be a Message in the first place.

   This changes removes those requirements of BIP322 that do away with the Message in Full (proof of funds) proof, thereby allowing it to be used as both a proof-of-address-control and proof-of-UTXO-control signature.

   Currently, you need to make two separate proofs to demonstrate control over both the address and for UTXOs, since most verifiers are not full nodes and have no UTXO set.

   Note: Contrary to what Github claims, there is only one commit being merged here. The other 10 are related to a file that I have already removed. I will rebase the commits when I get a chance. Note 2: If these delted parts are referring to the address/scriptPubKey, then this PR can be disregarded, but I strongly believe that the spec should mention that Output Points should be filled in the place of the Address field in a signed message [i.e. txid:n strings].

2. add bip-notatether-signedmessage 15224fdaea
3. minor heading correction 5364a66240
4. minor formatting correction 806c71b3ab
5. minor formatting correction 14a069cf2f
6. minor formatting correction 621b593d21
7. minor formatting correction e0032a40ff
8. minor formatting correction 1888b5793c
9. minor formatting correction 5e5e0e5485
10. fix some consistency errors 2d8fdf6149
11. Remove empty message for UTXO proofs 646c5ff5da
12. Delete bip-notatether-signedmessage.mediawiki 01b8722132
13. luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Sep 29, 2022
14. 
    kallewoof commented at 2:16 am on January 4, 2023: member

    The empty requirement was originally proposed by @luke-jr – I have no strong opinions on the matter, but I’ll give him the opportunity to address the suggestion before making a decision.
15. 
    murchandamus commented at 9:02 pm on April 30, 2024: contributor

    @kallewoof, @luke-jr: What’s the status of this?
16. 
    kallewoof commented at 4:46 am on May 1, 2024: member

    ACK
17. jonatack merged this on May 1, 2024
18. jonatack closed this on May 1, 2024

    ---

Contributors
ZenulAbidin kallewoof murchandamus

Labels
Proposed BIP modification