* [bitcoin-dev] A BIP for partially-signed/not-signed raw transaction serialization; would it be useful?
@ 2017-01-09 9:36 木ノ下じょな
2017-01-09 22:15 ` Chris Priest
[not found] ` <E04F385E-3B2F-445E-936C-F293BBC4CADA@thomaskerin.io>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: 木ノ下じょな @ 2017-01-09 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2526 bytes --]
I have been seeing issues like the following many times on all the
different projects that support multisig with users responsible for partial
transaction transport.
https://github.com/OutCast3k/coinbin/issues/73
I would like to gather opinions before proposing a BIP, (like whether we
need one or not) so please let me know what you think.
Basically, Electrum, Copay, Coinb.in, Bitcoin Core, etc. all have different
methodology for serializing partially signed multisig raw transactions, as
well as not-signed raw transactions regardless of scriptPubkey.
I think we should all be on the same page when serializing not-signed and
partially signed transactions so that the person could look at the data
alone and know what is necessary and how to manipulate it to sign and
complete the transaction.
- Jon
--
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Comment: http://openpgpjs.org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=/vUJ
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3190 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] A BIP for partially-signed/not-signed raw transaction serialization; would it be useful?
2017-01-09 9:36 [bitcoin-dev] A BIP for partially-signed/not-signed raw transaction serialization; would it be useful? 木ノ下じょな
@ 2017-01-09 22:15 ` Chris Priest
[not found] ` <E04F385E-3B2F-445E-936C-F293BBC4CADA@thomaskerin.io>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Priest @ 2017-01-09 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 木ノ下じょな,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
I approve of this idea. Counterparty has the same problem. Their API
returns a unsigned transaction that is formed differently from how
other unsigned transactions, which causes friction. Someone needs to
write up a specification that is standardized so that all unsigned
transactions are of the same form. Basically the signature section of
the should contains all the information required to make the
signature, and it needs to be encoded in a way that the signing
application (a blockchain library like BitcoinJ or BitcoinJS) can tell
that it is unsigned.
On 1/9/17, 木ノ下じょな via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have been seeing issues like the following many times on all the
> different projects that support multisig with users responsible for partial
> transaction transport.
>
> https://github.com/OutCast3k/coinbin/issues/73
>
> I would like to gather opinions before proposing a BIP, (like whether we
> need one or not) so please let me know what you think.
>
> Basically, Electrum, Copay, Coinb.in, Bitcoin Core, etc. all have different
> methodology for serializing partially signed multisig raw transactions, as
> well as not-signed raw transactions regardless of scriptPubkey.
>
> I think we should all be on the same page when serializing not-signed and
> partially signed transactions so that the person could look at the data
> alone and know what is necessary and how to manipulate it to sign and
> complete the transaction.
>
> - Jon
>
> --
> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
> Comment: http://openpgpjs.org
>
> xsBNBFTmJ8oBB/9rd+7XLxZG/x/KnhkVK2WBG8ySx91fs+qQfHIK1JrakSV3
> x6x0cK3XLClASLLDomm7Od3Q/fMFzdwCEqj6z60T8wgKxsjWYSGL3mq8ucdv
> iBjC3wGauk5dQKtT7tkCFyQQbX/uMsBM4ccGBICoDmIJlwJIj7fAZVqGxGOM
> bO1RhYb4dbQA2qxYP7wSsHJ6/ZNAXyEphOj6blUzdqO0exAbCOZWWF+E/1SC
> EuKO4RmL7Imdep7uc2Qze1UpJCZx7ASHl2IZ4UD0G3Qr3pI6/jvNlaqCTa3U
> 3/YeJwEubFsd0AVy0zs809RcKKgX3W1q+hVDTeWinem9RiOG/vT+Eec/ABEB
> AAHNI2tpbm9zaGl0YSA8a2lub3NoaXRham9uYUBnbWFpbC5jb20+wsByBBAB
> CAAmBQJU5ifRBgsJCAcDAgkQRB9iZ30dlisEFQgCCgMWAgECGwMCHgEAAC6Z
> B/9otobf0ASHYdlUBeIPXdDopyjQhR2RiZGYaS0VZ5zzHYLDDMW6ZIYm5CjO
> Fc09ETLGKFxH2RcCOK2dzwz+KRU4xqOrt/l5gyd50cFE1nOhUN9+/XaPgrou
> WhyT9xLeGit7Xqhht93z2+VanTtJAG6lWbAZLIZAMGMuLX6sJDCO0GiO5zxa
> 02Q2D3kh5GL57A5+oVOna12JBRaIA5eBGKVCp3KToT/z48pxBe3WAmLo0zXr
> hEgTSzssfb2zTwtB3Ogoedj+cU2bHJvJ8upS/jMr3TcdguySmxJlGpocVC/e
> qxq12Njv+LiETOrD8atGmXCnA+nFNljBkz+l6ADl93jHzsBNBFTmJ9EBCACu
> Qq9ZnP+aLU/Rt6clAfiHfTFBsJvLKsdIKeE6qHzsU1E7A7bGQKTtLEnhCCQE
> W+OQP+sgbOWowIdH9PpwLJ3Op+NhvLlMxRvbT36LwCmBL0yD7bMqxxmmVj8n
> vlMMRSe4wDSIG19Oy7701imnHZPm/pnPlneg/Meu/UffpcDWYBbAFX8nrXPY
> vkVULcI/qTcCxW/+S9fwoXjQhWHaiJJ6y3cYOSitN31W9zgcMvLwLX3JgDxE
> flkwq/M+ZkfCYnS3GAPEt8GkVKy2eHtCJuNkGFlCAmKMX0yWzHRAkqOMN5KP
> LFbkKY2GQl13ztWp82QYJZpj5af6dmyUosurn6AZABEBAAHCwF8EGAEIABMF
> AlTmJ9QJEEQfYmd9HZYrAhsMAABKbgf/Ulu5JAk4fXgH0DtkMmdkFiKEFdkW
> 0Wkw7Vhd5eZ4NzeP9kOkD01OGweT9hqzwhfT2CNXCGxh4UnvEM1ZMFypIKdq
> 0XpLLJMrDOQO021UjAa56vHZPAVmAM01z5VzHJ7ekjgwrgMLmVkm0jWKEKaO
> n/MW7CyphG7QcZ6cJX2f6uJcekBlZRw9TNYRnojMjkutlOVhYJ3J78nc/k0p
> kcgV63GB6D7wHRF4TVe4xIBqKpbBhhN+ISwFN1z+gx3lfyRMSmiTSrGdKEQe
> XSIQKG8XZQZUDhLNkqPS+7EMV1g7+lOfT4GhLL68dUXDa1e9YxGH6zkpVECw
> Spe3vsHZr6CqFg==
> =/vUJ
> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [bitcoin-dev] A BIP for partially-signed/not-signed raw transaction serialization; would it be useful?
[not found] ` <E04F385E-3B2F-445E-936C-F293BBC4CADA@thomaskerin.io>
@ 2017-01-10 12:35 ` 木ノ下じょな
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: 木ノ下じょな @ 2017-01-10 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Kerin, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6387 bytes --]
Hey Thomas,
Just to clear the air, I am not OutCast3k, but I have submitted various PRs
to coinb.in under multiple handle names, and also Copay and Electrum. (You
could say I have multisig in my blood if you want to be cheesy)
I think I'm going to go ahead and draft up a BIP and submit it here just to
get the ball rolling.
Any ideas or input can be sent to me directly via email. I'll also start a
Telegram group chat https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAAutbBADJuHRD7YvHw in case
anyone wants to join in on the discussion.
Thanks,
Jon
2017-01-10 18:18 GMT+09:00 Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io>:
> Hey,
>
> Firstly, your project coinb.in is really cool, I've used it a bit back in
> the day :-)
>
> It makes sense why you're looking for this proposal. I'm pretty sure on
> top of a serialisation of an unsigned tx with the scriptpubkey (it is to
> deliver signing data to the wallet too?) then you'll also want a protocol
> to request signatures.
>
> I worked on this problem before, when I was using your site and a tool of
> mine to carry out transactions. I would up writing a BIP that's basically
> the same (in message contents, not format) as Jonas's hardware signing BIP.
>
> I think he also realised that it's not just for hardware wallets, it's
> also perfect for a BitGo wallet to use to talk to a GreenAddress wallet. It
> seems to cover the web case nicely.
>
> (My app was one where users could supply an xpub for multisigs to the
> server, get txs, and do signing offline or in the browser)
>
> Maybe have a look over it and see if it starts to capture some of the
> things you would want!
>
> All the best,
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2017 10:36:49 CET, "木ノ下じょな via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have been seeing issues like the following many times on all the
>> different projects that support multisig with users responsible for partial
>> transaction transport.
>>
>> https://github.com/OutCast3k/coinbin/issues/73
>>
>> I would like to gather opinions before proposing a BIP, (like whether we
>> need one or not) so please let me know what you think.
>>
>> Basically, Electrum, Copay, Coinb.in, Bitcoin Core, etc. all have
>> different methodology for serializing partially signed multisig raw
>> transactions, as well as not-signed raw transactions regardless of
>> scriptPubkey.
>>
>> I think we should all be on the same page when serializing not-signed and
>> partially signed transactions so that the person could look at the data
>> alone and know what is necessary and how to manipulate it to sign and
>> complete the transaction.
>>
>> - Jon
>>
>> --
>> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>> Comment: http://openpgpjs.org
>>
>> xsBNBFTmJ8oBB/9rd+7XLxZG/x/KnhkVK2WBG8ySx91fs+qQfHIK1JrakSV3
>> x6x0cK3XLClASLLDomm7Od3Q/fMFzdwCEqj6z60T8wgKxsjWYSGL3mq8ucdv
>> iBjC3wGauk5dQKtT7tkCFyQQbX/uMsBM4ccGBICoDmIJlwJIj7fAZVqGxGOM
>> bO1RhYb4dbQA2qxYP7wSsHJ6/ZNAXyEphOj6blUzdqO0exAbCOZWWF+E/1SC
>> EuKO4RmL7Imdep7uc2Qze1UpJCZx7ASHl2IZ4UD0G3Qr3pI6/jvNlaqCTa3U
>> 3/YeJwEubFsd0AVy0zs809RcKKgX3W1q+hVDTeWinem9RiOG/vT+Eec/ABEB
>> AAHNI2tpbm9zaGl0YSA8a2lub3NoaXRham9uYUBnbWFpbC5jb20+wsByBBAB
>> CAAmBQJU5ifRBgsJCAcDAgkQRB9iZ30dlisEFQgCCgMWAgECGwMCHgEAAC6Z
>> B/9otobf0ASHYdlUBeIPXdDopyjQhR2RiZGYaS0VZ5zzHYLDDMW6ZIYm5CjO
>> Fc09ETLGKFxH2RcCOK2dzwz+KRU4xqOrt/l5gyd50cFE1nOhUN9+/XaPgrou
>> WhyT9xLeGit7Xqhht93z2+VanTtJAG6lWbAZLIZAMGMuLX6sJDCO0GiO5zxa
>> 02Q2D3kh5GL57A5+oVOna12JBRaIA5eBGKVCp3KToT/z48pxBe3WAmLo0zXr
>> hEgTSzssfb2zTwtB3Ogoedj+cU2bHJvJ8upS/jMr3TcdguySmxJlGpocVC/e
>> qxq12Njv+LiETOrD8atGmXCnA+nFNljBkz+l6ADl93jHzsBNBFTmJ9EBCACu
>> Qq9ZnP+aLU/Rt6clAfiHfTFBsJvLKsdIKeE6qHzsU1E7A7bGQKTtLEnhCCQE
>> W+OQP+sgbOWowIdH9PpwLJ3Op+NhvLlMxRvbT36LwCmBL0yD7bMqxxmmVj8n
>> vlMMRSe4wDSIG19Oy7701imnHZPm/pnPlneg/Meu/UffpcDWYBbAFX8nrXPY
>> vkVULcI/qTcCxW/+S9fwoXjQhWHaiJJ6y3cYOSitN31W9zgcMvLwLX3JgDxE
>> flkwq/M+ZkfCYnS3GAPEt8GkVKy2eHtCJuNkGFlCAmKMX0yWzHRAkqOMN5KP
>> LFbkKY2GQl13ztWp82QYJZpj5af6dmyUosurn6AZABEBAAHCwF8EGAEIABMF
>> AlTmJ9QJEEQfYmd9HZYrAhsMAABKbgf/Ulu5JAk4fXgH0DtkMmdkFiKEFdkW
>> 0Wkw7Vhd5eZ4NzeP9kOkD01OGweT9hqzwhfT2CNXCGxh4UnvEM1ZMFypIKdq
>> 0XpLLJMrDOQO021UjAa56vHZPAVmAM01z5VzHJ7ekjgwrgMLmVkm0jWKEKaO
>> n/MW7CyphG7QcZ6cJX2f6uJcekBlZRw9TNYRnojMjkutlOVhYJ3J78nc/k0p
>> kcgV63GB6D7wHRF4TVe4xIBqKpbBhhN+ISwFN1z+gx3lfyRMSmiTSrGdKEQe
>> XSIQKG8XZQZUDhLNkqPS+7EMV1g7+lOfT4GhLL68dUXDa1e9YxGH6zkpVECw
>> Spe3vsHZr6CqFg==
>> =/vUJ
>> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
--
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Comment: http://openpgpjs.org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=/vUJ
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8478 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-10 12:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-09 9:36 [bitcoin-dev] A BIP for partially-signed/not-signed raw transaction serialization; would it be useful? 木ノ下じょな
2017-01-09 22:15 ` Chris Priest
[not found] ` <E04F385E-3B2F-445E-936C-F293BBC4CADA@thomaskerin.io>
2017-01-10 12:35 ` 木ノ下じょな
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox