BIP-322 basic support #24058

kallewoof · 2022-01-13T12:30:29Z

This PR enables support for BIP-322, the sign/verify message upgrade.

Fixes #10542.

This PR is greatly simplified and is supposed to have one or more follow-up PRs to complete functionality.

In this PR:

signing using single key (any type)
verifying any signed message (auto-detects BIP-322 vs legacy)

Missing features/limitations:

proof of funds (i.e. additional inputs) support
multisig or other custom address type support (I need feedback on how to do this; I assume some psbt thing would be good?)
(RPC) format is restricted to SIMPLE mode now; it may eventually be LEGACY, SIMPLE, or FULL. (In some cases, it will use FULL format but this is not selectable yet.)
timelock support

ghost · 2022-01-13T13:04:42Z

Concept ACK

This should fix #10542

Sjors · 2022-01-13T13:39:51Z

@kallewoof do you know if any other wallet implemented BIP-322 yet, so we can compare the implementation?

This is really a good time to add test vectors to the BIP (and this PR).

Sjors · 2022-01-13T13:46:38Z

src/script/interpreter.cpp

Although SIGHASH_DEFAULT implies SIGHASH_ALL, AFAIK using SIGHASH_ALL is still possible for users who wish to waste 1 byte. So I think you need m_require_sighash_all && nHashType != SIGHASH_ALL here too.

Isn't that a malleability? Anyway, gotcha.

Sjors · 2022-01-13T13:59:12Z

src/rpc/misc.cpp

This message implies the user can do something about it. Suggest instead: "BIP-322 Proof of Funds is not supported"

Sounds good. The intention is to actually add this functionality, but I think it should be its own PR.

Sjors · 2022-01-13T14:00:36Z

src/rpc/misc.cpp

Why not just throw in these other cases?

Because these aren't errors? But yeah, that would be one way to return a message. I think I'd prefer to expand the returned value from simple bool to true|false|"inconclusive", but not sure that would be appreciated.

Some RPCs return false as the result and an error message field. Others just throw with an error code and message. It's an error in the vague sense that the RPC failed to verify what it was asked to verify.

OK, but what about "OK_TIMELOCKED"?

Sjors · 2022-01-13T14:03:16Z

src/util/message.h

I'm unsure, but perhaps we should make a fresh enum BIP322VerificationResult?

Oftentimes you won't know which type it is until you finish verifying, so unifying the two types seems sensible to me.

DrahtBot · 2022-01-13T14:58:37Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
ACK	theStack
Concept ACK	ghost

If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#26008 (wallet: cache IsMine scriptPubKeys to improve performance of descriptor wallets by achow101)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

benthecarman · 2022-01-13T18:38:46Z

@kallewoof do you know if any other wallet implemented BIP-322 yet, so we can compare the implementation?

This is really a good time to add test vectors to the BIP (and this PR).

I have an implementation here: bitcoin-s/bitcoin-s#3823

kallewoof · 2022-01-13T23:10:52Z

I will make test vectors very soon. Let's compare notes at that point @benthecarman.

benthecarman · 2022-01-13T23:14:09Z

I will make test vectors very soon. Let's compare notes at that point @benthecarman.

Sounds good, I made some in pr if you want to try those

kallewoof · 2022-01-13T23:15:09Z

Yep. I will try them, once I make my own. I don't want to adjust the code to fit your test vectors, I'd rather both implementations independently passing both sets.

luke-jr · 2022-01-15T22:06:56Z

Would like to see BIP 322 address the distinction between the current "signer receives fund with the address" and the long-desired "signer sent a prior transaction" even if not supported by this PR.

kallewoof · 2022-01-16T12:10:59Z

@luke-jr I'm not sure if you're suggesting a BIP change or a code feature. If the latter, I think the ideal path forward is for you to open a pull request follow-up to this one (maybe post-merge) to do what you are requesting. If former, open a PR to the BIP?

theStack

Strong Concept ACK

Thanks for working on this!

kallewoof · 2022-01-26T10:20:29Z

There is now a WIP with test vectors in bitcoin/bips#1279 which needs to be filled in (possibly with @benthecarman's cases).

theStack

PR description nit:

(RPC) format is restricted to SINGLE mode now; it may eventually be LEGACY, SINGLE, OR FULL

This should likely be SIMPLE rather than SINGLE?

theStack · 2022-01-30T13:24:08Z

src/util/message.cpp

Note that HASHER_BIP322 and some other identifiers are not available yet at this commit, i.e. compiling b23186d9f816aefe2fcf95e6f77d941c65e9c71c currently fails:

... CXX wallet/libbitcoin_wallet_tool_a-wallettool.o util/message.cpp:105:41: error: use of undeclared identifier 'HASHER_BIP322' uint256 message_hash = (CHashWriter(HASHER_BIP322) << message).GetSHA256(); ^ util/message.cpp:116:22: error: use of undeclared identifier 'DecodeTx' if (signature && DecodeTx(to_sign, *signature, /* try_no_witness */ true, /* try_witness */ true)) { ^ util/message.cpp:120:49: error: no member named 'ERR_POF' in 'MessageVerificationResult' result = MessageVerificationResult::ERR_POF; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ util/message.cpp:128:49: error: no member named 'ERR_INVALID' in 'MessageVerificationResult' result = MessageVerificationResult::ERR_INVALID; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ util/message.cpp:141:57: error: no member named 'ERR_INVALID' in 'MessageVerificationResult' result = MessageVerificationResult::ERR_INVALID; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^ 5 errors generated. ...

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b08d75d

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 3b00ed9

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: f57ed58

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b32c238

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 69bd3c4

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b8a55e2

…rify tests Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 63a2f59

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: de070b3

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 29b28d0

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 3a5816f

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: f0af8bd

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: cf2d75f

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 35cf639

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b08d75d

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 3b00ed9

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: f57ed58

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b32c238

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 69bd3c4

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b8a55e2

…rify tests Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 63a2f59

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: de070b3

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 29b28d0

jonatack · 2025-10-26T22:01:45Z

@kallewoof could you leave a comment explaining why you closed this PR? It is not apparent from looking at the history of this PR what the state is of BIP-322 support in Bitcoin Core.

Same question @kallewoof , why did you close this? It's a much needed feature.

Came here from reading BIP 322. Should this be marked as up for grabs? Still desired/needed?

Edit: seems to be a prerequisite for BIP 129.

kallewoof · 2025-10-26T23:30:49Z

I closed it as the effort required to keep up with wallet changes vs the interest in the feature itself did not at all match up. If someone wants to pick it up then by all means.

kallewoof · 2025-10-26T23:33:19Z

Belated, but I completely missed the two other comments asking for clarification until now. Sorry @benma and @kilrau, didn't mean to ignore you.

jonatack · 2025-10-27T00:17:13Z

Thanks @kallewoof!

jlopp · 2025-11-18T20:32:59Z

For the record, I do believe there is a strong use case for this feature. In particular, due to the travel rule. We have clients who get requests to prove the ownership of their wallet and since they can't use the legacy message signing option with their multisig wallet, the exchanges and other service providers are requiring them to send dust-level amounts of bitcoin to prove control. This, of course, is not really a viable long-term strategy.

kallewoof · 2025-11-18T23:40:56Z

If no one is actively looking into this at the moment, I will see about restoring (probably rewriting from scratch) this PR.

DrahtBot added Consensus GUI interfaces RPC/REST/ZMQ Utils/log/libs Wallet labels Jan 13, 2022

kallewoof force-pushed the 202201-bip322 branch from c9ff394 to abc51e1 Compare January 13, 2022 12:45

Sjors reviewed Jan 13, 2022

View reviewed changes

benthecarman mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2022

BIP 322 utility functions bitcoin-s/bitcoin-s#3823

Open

This was referenced Jan 13, 2022

Simplify BaseSignatureChecker virtual functions and GenericTransactionSignatureChecker constructors #22793

Closed

Implement BIP-119 Validation (CheckTemplateVerify) #21702

Closed

sanket1729 mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2022

More complete MessageSignature.is_signed_by_address rust-bitcoin/rust-bitcoin#684

Closed

kallewoof force-pushed the 202201-bip322 branch 2 times, most recently from 8eb5031 to 93a9c68 Compare January 14, 2022 04:53

theStack reviewed Jan 19, 2022

View reviewed changes

ghost mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2022

[RPC] Removal of signmessage and verifymessage #24186

Closed

theStack reviewed Jan 30, 2022

View reviewed changes

kallewoof force-pushed the 202201-bip322 branch 2 times, most recently from 6de4601 to 5053032 Compare January 31, 2022 04:18

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

message: extend MessageVerificationResult to support BIP-322

9a2f15e

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b08d75d

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

message: add BIP322Txs class for preparing BIP-322 transactions

217c7fe

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 3b00ed9

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

message: add BIP-322 verification support (without POF)

49b6b6d

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: f57ed58

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

wallet: add SignMessageBIP322() helper method to ScriptPubKeyMan

fd19826

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b32c238

luke-jr added a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

add basic BIP-322 message signing support

36708a8

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 69bd3c4

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

test: add BIP-322 related tests

2ac8749

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b8a55e2

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

Taproot tests

b34327b

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: de070b3

luke-jr pushed a commit to bitcoinknots/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Mar 5, 2025

2-of-3 p2sh, 3-of-3 p2wsh

2ac412c

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 29b28d0

bitcoin deleted a comment Mar 11, 2025

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

make DecodeTx() available to avoid repeated hex conversions

2204612

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 3a5816f

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

script: add 'require_sighash_all' flag to signature checker

a6db4bd

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: f0af8bd

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

message: add BIP-322 signature format (legacy, simple, full)

5689da7

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: cf2d75f

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

message: add BIP-322 support to MessageHash function

b9c6d98

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 35cf639

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

message: extend MessageVerificationResult to support BIP-322

5501bfe

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b08d75d

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

message: add BIP322Txs class for preparing BIP-322 transactions

3d056b0

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 3b00ed9

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

message: add BIP-322 verification support (without POF)

5fa3131

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: f57ed58

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

wallet: add SignMessageBIP322() helper method to ScriptPubKeyMan

f32c526

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b32c238

luke-jr added a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

add basic BIP-322 message signing support

fa90486

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 69bd3c4

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

test: add BIP-322 related tests

b7e42cd

Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: b8a55e2

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

test: Add externally generated signature (buidl-python library) to ve…

d9030f0

…rify tests Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 63a2f59

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

Taproot tests

30c94bc

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: de070b3

luke-jr pushed a commit to luke-jr/bitcoin that referenced this pull request Jun 6, 2025

2-of-3 p2sh, 3-of-3 p2wsh

9151ee8

Co-authored-by: Will Abramson <wip.abramson@gmail.com> Github-Pull: bitcoin#24058 Rebased-From: 29b28d0

BIP-322 basic support #24058

BIP-322 basic support #24058

Uh oh!

Conversation

kallewoof commented Jan 13, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ghost commented Jan 13, 2022 • edited by ghost Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Jan 13, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jan 13, 2022 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Reviews

Conflicts

Uh oh!

benthecarman commented Jan 13, 2022

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Jan 13, 2022

Uh oh!

benthecarman commented Jan 13, 2022

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Jan 13, 2022

Uh oh!

luke-jr commented Jan 15, 2022

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Jan 16, 2022

Uh oh!

theStack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Jan 26, 2022

Uh oh!

theStack left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Oct 26, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Oct 26, 2025

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Oct 26, 2025

Uh oh!

jonatack commented Oct 27, 2025

Uh oh!

jlopp commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Nov 18, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

kallewoof commented Jan 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

ghost commented Jan 13, 2022 •

edited by ghost

Loading

Sjors commented Jan 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Jan 13, 2022 •

edited

Loading

jonatack commented Oct 26, 2025 •

edited

Loading