<div dir="ltr">Thank you... I've updated.<div><br></div><div>> <span style="font-size:12.8px">New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Fair enough... I still think there are those who would still like an existing sign/verify BIP to reference.</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target="_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thursday 21 December 2017 10:26:25 PM Dan Bryant via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/brianddk/bips/blob/legacysignverify/bip-0xyz.mediawiki" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/brianddk/<wbr>bips/blob/legacysignverify/<wbr>bip-0xyz.mediawiki</a><br>
<br>
It's not even correct... Your first "verify message" step is not possible; you<br>
can't get a public key from an address.<br>
<br>
What is actually done, is using the signature + message to perform key<br>
recovery, to extract the public key of the signer, and then hashing that and<br>
comparing it to the address provided.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Although this is a well established functionality, it has never been<br>
> published in a BIP. My proposal is simply to provide a reference point for<br>
> future expansion of these capabilities into new address schemes.<br>
<br>
</span>New schemes should probably NOT be based on the current one.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>