Thank you... I've updated.

> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.

Fair enough... I still think there are those who would still like an
existing sign/verify BIP to reference.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 21 December 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/
> bip-0xyz.mediawiki
>
> It's not even correct... Your first "verify message" step is not possible;
> you
> can't get a public key from an address.
>
> What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key
> recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that
> and
> comparing it to the address provided.
>
> > Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been
> > published in a BIP.  My proposal is simply to provide a reference point
> for
> > future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.
>
> New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.
>
> Luke
>