BIP 137: Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys

cgilliard commented at 9:46 pm on February 18, 2019: contributor

As per BIP 2 process, creating pull request with filed named BIP-XXXX.mediawiki.

create new bip proposal 6d42bc0c5b

luke-jr added the label New BIP on Feb 18, 2019

luke-jr renamed this:
~~create new bip proposal~~
New BIP: Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys
on Feb 18, 2019

luke-jr commented at 11:58 pm on February 18, 2019: member

Missing backward compatibility section, and possibly a duplicate of BIP 127 and/or BIP 322.

cgilliard commented at 0:25 am on February 19, 2019: contributor

I can add a backward compatibility section. Basically though, if you are using a non segwit or bech 32 address, the signature header will be as it was before (i.e. 27-31 for uncompressed, 32-35 for compressed). Regarding these BIPs, I don’t see anything regarding how to distinguish between segwit/bech32 keys and p2pkh which is really what this BIP is addressing. I’m fine with this being addressed/merged into other BIPs or referenced, etc, not really looking to get my name on a BIP necessarily, but I would think the header field, which is widely used in the field should be specified clearly somewhere.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 3:59 PM Luke Dashjr notifications@github.com wrote:

Missing backward compatibility section, and possibly a duplicate of BIP 127 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/756 and/or BIP 322 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki.

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764#issuecomment-464926105, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5atxBQcICWJF9a1tE5jpQqKCN1DYBGks5vOz5IgaJpZM4bBqW0 .

sipa commented at 1:38 am on February 19, 2019: member

BIP322 distinguishes fine between p2wpkh/p2pkh/p2sh-p2wpkh and much more (including multisig etc).

cgilliard commented at 1:52 am on February 19, 2019: contributor

I see. I didn’t notice that at first glance in the BIP. Yes, this BIP does cover everything apparently and I didn’t know about this when I wrote up this, but I don’t think it’s widely used in the field yet, or at least I have not seen it. You might want to give the BIP I created a number and just point out it’s for the EOLed format because that format is widely used. I can even mention something like that in the BIP itself. Just let me know what you want to do and I will make updates.

–Chris

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:38 PM Pieter Wuille notifications@github.com wrote:

BIP322 distinguishes fine between p2wpkh/p2pkh/p2sh-p2wpkh and much more (including multisig etc).

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764#issuecomment-464944182, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5atxD8aO-K7k7TZAit_WwvOnJuk8Sfks5vO1WsgaJpZM4bBqW0 .

Add P2PKH info, backwards compat, BIP 311 ref f4a04d2bc6

cgilliard commented at 1:35 am on February 20, 2019: contributor

Made update to reference the newer signature format (BIP311) and indicate this is only to document existing signatures. Also, added backwards compatibility section and a section on signing/verification which includes non-segwit signatures too.

grammer fix dbaaab3abf

spelling fix d4e0fc03f3

cgilliard commented at 6:14 pm on February 27, 2019: contributor

I incorporated all the feedback that I received here and through the mailing list and through other emails. As you can see I’m linking to the newer BIP, but since Trezor and others have implemented this I thought it was important to document somewhere. If there’s anything else that needs to be done, let me know.

in bip-XXXX.mediawiki:18 in d4e0fc03f3 outdated

13+
14+# Abstract #
15+
16+This document describes a signature format for signing messages with Bitcoin private keys.
17+
18+The specification is intended to describe the standard for signatures of messages that can be signed and verfied between different clients that exist in the field today. Note: that a new signature format has been definied which has a number of advantages over this BIP, but to be backwards compatible with existing implementations this BIP will be useful. See BIP 322 [1] for full details on the new signature scheme.

clarkmoody commented at 7:50 pm on February 27, 2019:

Typo: definied -> defined

cgilliard commented at 10:52 pm on March 2, 2019:

Fixed by this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764/commits/fe6899a294c5d437f727981f69a660a833bcba6b

in bip-XXXX.mediawiki:122 in d4e0fc03f3 outdated

117+
118+Since this format includes P2PKH keys, it is backwards compatible, but keep in mind some software has checks for ranges of headers and will report the newer segwit header types as errors.
119+
120+# Implications #
121+
122+Message signing is an important use case and potentially underused due to the fact that, up until now, there has not be a formal specification for how wallets can sign messages using Bitcoin private keys. Bitcoin wallets should be interoperable and use the same conventions for determing a signature's validity. This BIP can also be updated as new signature formats emerge.

clarkmoody commented at 7:54 pm on February 27, 2019:

Typo: there has not be a -> there has not been a

cgilliard commented at 10:53 pm on March 2, 2019:

Fixed by this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764/commits/5a53d13b1c969b960dcd9bd12aa5ba1f031b87ea

clarkmoody changes_requested

fix typo fe6899a294

fix typo 5a53d13b1c

bold three key words and add in empty lines 99f4211dde

in bip-XXXX.mediawiki:39 in d4e0fc03f3 outdated

34+(For readers who already understand how ECDSA signatures work, you can skip this section as this is only intended as background information.)
35+Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm or ECDSA is a cryptographic algorithm used by Bitcoin to ensure that funds can only be spent by their rightful owners.
36+
37+A few concepts related to ECDSA:
38+
39+private key: A secret number, known only to the person that generated it. A private key is essentially a randomly generated number. In Bitcoin, someone with the private key that corresponds to funds on the block chain can spend the funds. In Bitcoin, a private key is a single unsigned 256 bit integer (32 bytes).

clarkmoody commented at 7:56 pm on February 27, 2019:

Need some sort of sub-header or bold font for these terms. In the output, these are jumbled together into the paragraph, making it hard to read. Maybe just blank lines and bold formatting for “private key,” “public key,” and “signature.”

cgilliard commented at 10:56 pm on March 2, 2019:

Fixed here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764/commits/99f4211dde9f0b3ae31f366303c225e314638f1c

luke-jr commented at 6:07 am on March 29, 2019: member

GitHub doesn’t seem to understand the formatting used here for headers at least?

in bip-XXXX.mediawiki:5 in 99f4211dde outdated

0@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
1+<pre>
2+  BIP: ???
3+  Layer: Applications
4+  Title: Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys
5+  Author: Christopher Gilliard &ltchristopher.gilliard@gmail.com&gt

luke-jr commented at 6:09 am on March 29, 2019:

A literal < and > should be used here.

cgilliard commented at 4:03 pm on March 29, 2019:

Fixed.

cgilliard commented at 4:04 pm on March 29, 2019:

Also updated to BIP 137 in this section and changed file name. Should I do another pull request?

luke-jr commented at 10:08 pm on March 29, 2019:

No reason for another PR…

luke-jr commented at 6:13 am on March 29, 2019: member

Let’s use BIP 137 for this

luke-jr renamed this:
~~New BIP: Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys~~
BIP 137: Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys
on Mar 29, 2019

use bip number 137 and use literal < and > a7136d5ca8

update file name to bip 137 cd1cb8f754

Shorten name to pass build tests a1cb694aa0

update first comment URI 40cace6202

fix formatting 0781e70e55

formating fix 01d1398c15

Layer from Wallet -> Applications 2d319e5798

status final 3140d5803c

cgilliard commented at 5:50 pm on March 29, 2019: contributor

Travis reported several issues which I fixed one by one in the last few checkins, but I was not able to understand the last reported issue by Travis. It is here: https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bips/builds/513142681?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification

If anyone knows what I need to do to fix this, let me know.

luke-jr commented at 10:09 pm on March 29, 2019: member

It generated the changes you need to make to the README file

in bip-0137.mediawiki:8 in 3140d5803c outdated

0@@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
1+<pre>
2+  BIP: 137
3+  Layer: Applications
4+  Title: Signatures of Messages using Private Keys
5+  Author: Christopher Gilliard <christopher.gilliard@gmail.com>
6+  Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
7+  Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0137
8+  Status: Final

luke-jr commented at 10:31 pm on March 29, 2019:

API/RPC and application layer BIPs must be implemented by at least two independent and compatible software applications.

Are there two?

cgilliard commented at 10:37 pm on March 29, 2019:

Yes.

luke-jr commented at 0:01 am on March 30, 2019:

Which?

cgilliard commented at 0:10 am on March 30, 2019:

Trezor, Ledger (partial support in their chrome app), Bitcoin Signature Tool, and any of the airdrops that supported these signatures like Bitcoin Rhodium, MWC, byte ball (I think). There are probably others that I don’t know about.

Merge branch 'master' of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips f5ca2f2d5b

add text to readme 5416afeff6

include background color b6e43f2fb5

Update README.mediawiki 2a4ed6546f

Update README.mediawiki d550729677

Update README.mediawiki 6a947027e8

cgilliard commented at 0:28 am on March 30, 2019: contributor

Tried this with a few combinations, but was unsuccessful even though it looks correct in the browser to me. Any suggestions?

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 3:09 PM Luke Dashjr notifications@github.com wrote:

It generated the changes you need to make to the README file

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764#issuecomment-478164637, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5aty9K6qqToYvRPE6mPrHbLhZg8DyBks5vbo8ugaJpZM4bBqW0 .

luke-jr commented at 0:28 am on March 30, 2019: member

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/d5507296775c915068e147c2f73b1c7e8aef868c/bip-0137.mediawiki

Update README.mediawiki 09d4e8d7b9

Update README.mediawiki 7f3c5e516b

cgilliard commented at 1:04 am on March 30, 2019: contributor

Fixed.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 5:29 PM Luke Dashjr notifications@github.com wrote:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/d5507296775c915068e147c2f73b1c7e8aef868c/bip-0137.mediawiki

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764#issuecomment-478187623, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5at6aFGHnkxCo2yP5b6LQKfEjYjbRfks5vbq_YgaJpZM4bBqW0 .

luke-jr commented at 2:48 am on March 30, 2019: member

The formatting of the BIP itself is still a mess. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting

sipa commented at 2:59 am on March 30, 2019: member

Looks like this may be written in markdown instead of mediawiki format?

fix formatting e2e83ccdea

cgilliard commented at 3:02 am on March 30, 2019: contributor

Not sure what happened. It was correctly formatted at one point, I thought. Fixing it now.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 7:59 PM Pieter Wuille notifications@github.com wrote:

Looks like this may be written in markdown instead of mediawiki format?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764#issuecomment-478200183, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5at1_8h6VcxyBMvb1DxuobAlZ1D7lgks5vbtMNgaJpZM4bBqW0 .

Update bip-0137.mediawiki 6a181756e4

media wiki format 95db88b5e8

move to code tag bebffb6ac8

Update bip-0137.mediawiki c823bb0638

Update bip-0137.mediawiki c6456f1607

cgilliard commented at 3:19 am on March 30, 2019: contributor

Fixed, yes the problem was it was originally written as a MD file and when it was saved as mediawiki the formatting was broken. It’s all good now.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:01 PM Christopher Gilliard < christopher.gilliard@gmail.com> wrote:

Not sure what happened. It was correctly formatted at one point, I thought. Fixing it now.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 7:59 PM Pieter Wuille notifications@github.com wrote:

Looks like this may be written in markdown instead of mediawiki format?

— You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/764#issuecomment-478200183, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5at1_8h6VcxyBMvb1DxuobAlZ1D7lgks5vbtMNgaJpZM4bBqW0 .

luke-jr merged this on Mar 30, 2019

luke-jr closed this on Mar 30, 2019

brianddk cross-referenced this on Sep 16, 2019 from issue [Feature Request] Support BIP-0137 for text message sign/verify by brianddk

BIP 137: Signatures of Messages using Bitcoin Private Keys #764