It doesn’t matter what it does under the hood. The api could be the same.
> On Dec 21, 2017, at 3:19 AM, Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > In all seriousness, being able to sign a message is an important feature > whether it is with Bitcoin Core or, with some other method. It is a good > feature and it would be worthwhile IMHO to update it for SegWit addresses. I > don't know about renewing it altogether, I like the current simplicity. > > Regards, > Damian Williamson > > ------------------------------------ > Sometimes I like to sign a message just to verify that is what I have said. > - > Bitcoin: 1PMUf9aaQ41M4bgVbCAPVwAeuKvj8CwxJg > ------------------------------------ > Signature: > HwJPqyWF0CbdsR7x737HbNIDoRufsrMI5XYQsKZ+MrWCJ6K7imtLY00sTCmSMDigZxRuoxyYZyQUw/lL0m/MV9M= > > (Of course, signed messages will verify better usually with plain text and > not HTML interpreted email - need a switch for outlook.com to send plaintext.) > From: bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org > <bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Mark Friedenbach > via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > Sent: Wednesday, 20 December 2017 8:58 AM > To: Pavol Rusnak; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Sign / Verify message against SegWit P2SH > addresses. > > For what it’s worth, I think it would be quite easy to do better than the > implied solution of rejiggering the message signing system to support > non-P2PKH scripts. Instead, have the signature be an actual bitcoin > transaction with inputs that have the script being signed. Use the salted > hash of the message being signed as the FORKID as if this were a spin-off > with replay protection. This accomplishes three things: > > (1) This enables signing by any infrastructure out there — including hardware > wallets and 2FA signing services — that have enabled support for FORKID > signing, which is a wide swath of the ecosystem because of Bitcoin Cash and > Bitcoin Gold. > > (2) It generalizes the message signing to allow multi-party signing setups as > complicated (via sighash, etc.) as those bitcoin transactions allow, using > existing and future tools based on Partially Signed Bitcoin Transactions; and > > (3) It unifies a single approach for message signing, proof of reserve (where > the inputs are actual UTXOs), and off-chain colored coins. > > There’s the issue of size efficiency, but for the single-party message > signing application that can be handled by a BIP that specifies a template > for constructing the pseudo-transaction and its inputs from a raw script. > > Mark > > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Pavol Rusnak via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > On 08/12/17 19:25, Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> I know there are posts, and an issue opened against it, but is there > >> anyone writing a BIP for Sign / Verify message against a SegWit address? > > > > Dan, are you still planning to write this BIP? > > > > -- > > Best Regards / S pozdravom, > > > > Pavol "stick" Rusnak > > CTO, SatoshiLabs > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
