From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
To: "Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io" <arthur@bitcoin-fr•io>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] URI scheme for signing and verifying messages
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 12:08:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201509151208.58326.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15ce53e7feabef3c9a40c5d3df9ff283@rainloop.aaawop.com>
On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:49:36 AM Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io wrote:
> September 15 2015 6:04 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
> > I think probably the whole signed message thing needs to be rethought.
> > The most common "uses" today seem to be insecure cases that it doesn't
> > actually work in: people trying to prove ownership of bitcoins and/or
> > that they sent bitcoins (current signed messages can do neither).
> > Ideally, whatever the new method is should also avoid using the same key
> > as for signing transactions, since the public key is technically private
> > information. Furthermore, since addresses are semi-deprecated (by the
> > payment protocol), I'm not sure it makes sense to do this without
> > designing an entire authentication system, which may be rather complex.
> >
> > Luke
>
> My proposal is about the current signing process (which exists event it
> it's not perfect) but it could also work with a new signing message system
> tomorrow. It more about give users an easier way to access existing tools
> than the "sign message thing" itself.
One of my concerns is that making the existing signatures even easier will
cause incompatible uses to become more prolific and accepted, increasing the
overall risk. Hence my recommendation to satisfy these clearly-existing use
cases with a safe signature *first*.
> BTW I'm aware of privacy issues, but could you elaborate on why the use
> case your are referring to doesn't actually work?
The signed message proves that the person who *receives* payment with the
address agrees to a given message/contract.
It is therefore appropriate and a best practice for web wallet providers
(inherent problems with webwallets aside) to allow users to sign messages
with their deposit addresses. When bitcoins are received by this address, the
transaction creates a low-level UTXO representing the bitcoins *in the
wallet*, but this UTXO is not associated with the address itself. Therefore,
it is entirely possible that this UTXO remains unspent/valid on the
blockchain even after the user in question has spent their entire balance at
the webwallet and therefore such a signature proves only that they once
received the payment, but *not* that they presently still have the bitcoins
received.
Furthermore, it is proper for the UTXO to be redeemed at a low-level by the
wallet when an entirely unrelated user is sending a transaction. In such a
circumstance, the original recipient of the bitcoins would still be able to
sign a message, even though they have nothing to do with nor any right to the
goods/services purchased with the transaction redeeming that UTXO.
> Here are a use of
> bitcoin signatures ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497545.0 ) to
> speak about a real case.
Yes, there are a few good use cases for the current signed messages, but they
appear to be a minority at the moment. I suspect implementing any URI-based
signing would actually make them more difficult as well, since it is
additional code on the requester's part.
Luke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-15 12:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-14 18:57 Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io
2015-09-14 23:51 ` Thomas Kerin
2015-09-15 4:03 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-15 10:49 ` Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io
2015-09-15 12:08 ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2015-09-15 13:21 ` Arthur - bitcoin-fr.io
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201509151208.58326.luke@dashjr.org \
--to=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=arthur@bitcoin-fr$(echo .)io \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox