Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests [combined summary]

• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Michael Grønager 2012-04-04 08:35:12+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Wladimir 2012-04-04 06:23:48+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Alan Reiner 2012-04-04 00:01:10+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Mike Koss 2012-04-03 23:37:01+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Alan Reiner 2012-04-03 21:12:54+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Alan Reiner 2012-04-03 20:51:18+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Peter Vessenes 2012-04-03 20:04:19+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Wladimir 2012-04-03 19:42:52+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Luke-Jr 2012-04-03 18:55:40+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Gavin Andresen 2012-04-03 18:46:17+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Luke-Jr 2012-04-03 00:44:37+00:00
• Signature Blocks and URI Sign Requests Alan Reiner 2012-04-02 20:55:03+00:00

Published on: 2012-04-04T08:35:12+00:00

Summary:

The email conversations discuss various proposals and concerns related to improving security measures in Bitcoin transactions. Wladimir suggests signing preformatted messages from sites to enhance transaction security. The proposed approach involves creating a 512-bit data structure by taking the sha512 of a document and then taking ripemd160 of hash512. This procedure prevents malicious sites from tricking users into signing transactions spending their own coins.There is also a discussion about the importance of multi-sig technology in Bitcoin transactions. Alan Reiner expresses concern about the complexity of executing multi-sig transactions and suggests that BIP 10 (or successor) is critical for the success of multi-sig. Wladimir agrees with the need for simpler execution of multi-sig and proposes defining URL signing/authentication to make P2SH easier and less involved. He also highlights the issue of URL size limit and suggests a solution to pass the address where the message can be retrieved.In another conversation, Alan Reiner clarifies that his proposal is not about changing the Bitcoin protocol itself but rather an intermediate data format that allows users to sign messages with their existing Bitcoin identities. There are discussions on whether to extend existing standards like PGP/EC or create a new solution. The focus is on simplicity and caution when considering changes to the Bitcoin protocol.Gavin Andresen suggests extending existing standards instead of reinventing the wheel. He questions whether signature blocks or BIP-10 transactions could be encoded using S/MIME or a "sign a message" standard. The aim is to leverage the work already done by the IETF and ensure interoperability between different implementations.Peter Vessenes emphasizes the need for simplicity in protocol design and warns against adding unnecessary complexity. He suggests a one-year required discussion period for non-security changes to the blockchain protocol and highlights the dangers of cruft over a long period of time.Luke-Jr expresses concerns about adding too many features to Bitcoin and believes that signing messages should be limited to logging into a website. There are discussions on using PGP/EC for signing and verifying messages, but Wladimir cautions against adding unnecessary features and complexity to Bitcoin.Overall, the conversations highlight the importance of improving security measures in Bitcoin transactions while considering simplicity, interoperability, and avoiding unnecessary complexity. The need for standard solutions, like BIP 10, URL signing/authentication, and extending existing standards, is emphasized throughout the discussions.

Updated on: 2023-08-01T03:25:30.459743+00:00