[BIP322] remove empty message requirement for full (proof-of-funds) proofs#1352
Merged
Conversation
luke-jr
added
the
Proposed BIP modification
Contributor
|
The empty requirement was originally proposed by @luke-jr -- I have no strong opinions on the matter, but I'll give him the opportunity to address the suggestion before making a decision. |
Member
|
@kallewoof, @luke-jr: What’s the status of this? |
Contributor
|
ACK |
guggero
added a commit
to guggero/bips
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 4, 2026
This is cleaning up an artifact that was left over from bitcoin#1352. The alternative to removing the optionality of the address would be to assume OP_TRUE in case of an empty address. But that sounds like it could open up any number of potential vulnerabilities. And a user still has the ability to use an OP_TRUE script in a p2wsh or p2tr address.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Signed messages must be displayed in
, however for that to be possible, there must be a Message in the first place.This changes removes those requirements of BIP322 that do away with the Message in Full (proof of funds) proof, thereby allowing it to be used as both a proof-of-address-control and proof-of-UTXO-control signature.
Currently, you need to make two separate proofs to demonstrate control over both the address and for UTXOs, since most verifiers are not full nodes and have no UTXO set.
Note: Contrary to what Github claims, there is only one commit being merged here. The other 10 are related to a file that I have already removed. I will rebase the commits when I get a chance.
Note 2: If these delted parts are referring to the address/scriptPubKey, then this PR can be disregarded, but I strongly believe that the spec should mention that Output Points should be filled in the place of the Address field in a signed message [i.e. txid:n strings].