How to sign a message with segwit address?

[supermankid]

I am looking for a way to prove that I own a bitcoin (address). I see the simple way is to transfer 1 sat from my address and the other way is to sign a message.

The first question: is this possible in bitcoin core?
I want a way to verify the ownership of my address by signing a message with its private key / wallet password.

Other simple way would be to transfer the amount from that amount (a small amount) but I could ask my friend to do it for me. He might agree to send few Satoshis for me but might not sign a message for me. (so, signing message using bitcoin core would be the best choice, if that is possible)

[1714666309]

1714666309

[1714666309]

1714666309

[1714666309]

1714666309

[tranthidung]

I see the simple way is to transfer 1 sat from my address and the other way is to sign a message.

You use your key to sign a message but you don't have to spend any sat, make any on-chain transaction to sign a Bitcoin message.

The first question: is this possible in bitcoin core?

Yes. Not only with Bitcoin Core but also with other non-custodial wallets.

• How to sign a message?
• Stake your Bitcoin address here. Sign first, stake it there.

I want a way to verify the ownership of my address by signing a message with its private key / wallet password.

You misunderstood it. You sign, others will verify it and confirm your ownership.

Of course, you can try to sign a message and verify it too.

He might agree to send few Satoshis for me but might not sign a message for me. (so, signing message using bitcoin core would be the best choice, if that is possible)

Your friend can only sign a message if you share your keys to him. It is risky because you will no longer the only ownership of that wallet. You and your friend co-own that wallet.

[franky1]

its one of the flaws of segwit.
its one of the reasons why i prefer to still use legacy addresses

much more easier to sign messages with legacy, even making new wallet software requires less cludge code to handle legacy stuff

silly devs didnt realise that most people that wanted to sign messages, just used legacy because segwit didnt allow it

and over the years because no one that wanted to sign messages bothered using segwit and thus didnt run crying to the devs, the devs then (snowball effect) didnt bother adding it. they simply thought 'as there was no large outcry for it. it wasnot needed" (facepalm)
not realising people simply avoided segwit so didnt need to cry, plus knew if people did cry about it they would just get ignored. so again snowball. they didnt bother

some devs (not the main maintainers) have tried.. but the main devs ignored them.
https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2021/09/29/#preparing-for-taproot-15-signmessage-protocol-still-needed


kind of shameful really because now them same main maintainer devs are trying their damned hardest to make it harder to use legacy, because they feel that there is too much legacy use(but they fail to put 1 and 1 together as to the many reasons why people still use legacy)

they are quick to force in new tx formats. but once activated, they then begin to not give a crap about bug fixing it. they just take their sponsored reward for getting a feature in, and take a step back

best advice..
just use legacy addresses

[NotATether]

It is possible, but segwit signatures have not been standardized, so they will be different for each wallet.

Maybe I can get you a better answer if I ask on the Bitcoin Core mailing list.

[pooya87]

its one of the flaws of segwit.
its one of the reasons why i prefer to still use legacy addresses
~ because segwit didnt allow it

That's nonsense.
You don't sign a message from your address for the address type to be making a difference in your ability to do it. You sign it from your private key so you an do it regardless of what address type you are using (legacy or SegWit version 0 or 1 or any other future ones).

The problem is laziness of some developers to implement the feature for the users in GUI. For example Electrum devs added this option from early days while others including core devs didn't. Some wallets still don't have the option. That is not a flaw in protocol.
That would be like saying "the protocol is flawed because my wallet doesn't let me create a multi-sig address".

[tranthidung]

It is possible, but segwit signatures have not been standardized, so they will be different for each wallet.

• How to verify SegWit signature with Brainwallet ?
• One of ways to verify Segwit signature. The topic was made 3 years ago.

[NotATether]

It is possible, but segwit signatures have not been standardized, so they will be different for each wallet.

• How to verify SegWit signature with Brainwallet ?
• One of ways to verify Segwit signature. The topic was made 3 years ago.

I had the impression that the Brainwallet site was deprecated (the original website shows you a no-op) so I was merely going to copy-paste the functionalities onto my own website.

[franky1]

its one of the flaws of segwit.
its one of the reasons why i prefer to still use legacy addresses
~ because segwit didnt allow it

That's nonsense.
You don't sign a message from your address for the address type to be making a difference in your ability to do it. You sign it from your private key so you an do it regardless of what address type you are using (legacy or SegWit version 0 or 1 or any other future ones).

The problem is laziness of some developers to implement the feature for the users in GUI. For example Electrum devs added this option from early days while others including core devs didn't. Some wallets still don't have the option. That is not a flaw in protocol.
That would be like saying "the protocol is flawed because my wallet doesn't let me create a multi-sig address".

didnt say protocol flaw.. i did call out the core devs..
good try with the knickpicking of half a sentence with your '~' snip.. without reading the entire content
but even you eventually came to the right conclusion.. lazy devs (or more precisely devs only interested in features they get paid to implement)

actually. its nice to see you finally defend the protocol and not the usual defend the dev routine. . so u earn some merit.


and there is no single standard for bech32 'signmessage' because each wallet that does. does it differently.
all because, yep. core devs didnt care to standardise something once the reached their sponsored goal of simply activating segwit, so other wallets went in all their different directions. and yea some other wallet devs did offer solutions to core that got ignored as core were not interested

which again snowball effect. just makes using legacy signmessage simpler to avoid all the drama and crap and cludgy code

so the motto of the story.. just use legacy, avoid the drama and cludge

[tranthidung]

actually. its nice to see you finally defend the protocol and not the usual defend the dev routine. . so u earn some merit.

pooya did not make that post to answer you and to earn merit. 

 

[pooya87]

its one of the flaws of segwit.

didnt say protocol flaw

SegWit is part of the protocol whether you like it or not.

and there is no single standard for bech32 'signmessage'

There is a standard if you ever bothered looking for it. It is called BIP-137. There is even another less popular one called BIP-322.

all because, yep. core devs didnt care to standardise something once the reached their sponsored goal of simply activating segwit, so other wallets went in all their different directions. and yea some other wallet devs did offer solutions to core that got ignored as core were not interested

Your personal feelings against core devs leads you to post a lot of nonsense, Bitcoin is not centralized for us to wait for core devs to implement even an optional feature (like BIP39 or seed phrases). As I said the standard already exists and even if it didn't, everyone is welcome to propose any standard and implement it either on top of core or any other implementation of the protocol.
That's not to mention that bitcoin core as the reference implementation of the protocol is not supposed to have every single optional feature.

What you point out about other wallet developers is inaccurate. I personally categorize them into two groups: competent and incompetent.
- Competent developers like the Electrum devs, don't copy code or wait for someone else to implement things for them to copy. They implement it if the standard exists which is why you can sign a message from SegWit addresses in Electrum.
- The incompetent devs are the ones you are talking about, if you look at their code it is horrible and is mostly copied or translated which is why they don't have options such as message signing if it is not found in bitcoin core. These are the same devs who reuse k values and leak users' private keys. In other words such wallets should not even be used let alone for you to talk about whether they've implemented message signing!

[franky1]

to other readers
TL:dr;
just use legacy, much easier

drama waffle:
and now pooya is back to playing silly games to defend devs, rather then thinking about the code and features users outside the core dev team want to see

turning it into drama without doing the research because doing the research goes against his fandom
distracting using drama that the core devs were lazy to rush a cludgy implementation for sponsorship money.. by trying to make it sound like he was talking about other devs and pretending i was talking about other devs..
soo.. back to usual pooya and his usual buddy style.


funny part is i was talking about the core devs lack of standardising segwit message signing which you proved by linking 2 options where NEITHER are in core.. thus none are standardised.
also those signing message Bips. were made a year+ AFTER segwit was activated. where segwit was activated AFTER a long time of 'supposed' testing to make sure everything was 'supposedly' ready..
thus. half-finished-job when activated

oh and segwit is an opt-in feature. not part of the protocol consensus rules
please learn the difference

main point of topic. guys says he cant do something in core.. and yes he cant. thus. yea. he should just use legacy, as the proper advice for the topic.
and also while a user in the community has issues using something he thought core should be doing. but cant.
seems other people are more interested in defending a HUMAN devs honour and loyalty. rather then actually admit the issue of the topic.

anyways
when Sipa re-wrote a load of code with the cludgy bytes and vbytes cludge. hiding data length, miscalculating data costs etc(lsit goes on of bad implementation of segwit).. while activating it anyway and getting the feature he was sponsored to activate to allow his corporate sponsors to have their silly subnetworks functional.
he didnt add the stuff to allow message signing in core for those features. nor other things. that he promised the community (outside the core dev team)
(oh and even today, he knows it.. his own website still uses legacy address as a donation address so that he can sign the address to prove its really his.. .. yep the guy that implemented segwit has not used segwit addresses on his own website for donations.. now why would he refuse to use a feature he himself implemented)


and now he also got taproot activated.. . another sponsored feature requirement of a corporation.. .. he now steps down from maintainer status.. hmm much like the blockstream exodus of late 2017.. no coincidence.
(and lets now welcome brink, the 2022 sponsors of core.. oh. and same mother company(dcg) back-end funding it as blockstream))

great thing about history, and data. .. it exists. so go research


good luck with your research though.. you need it.
seems it was once step forward 5 steps back for you. .. you couldnt even last a day going against your fandom

...
anyway.. back to the point of topic.
just use legacy, so much easier. it just does what its suppose to do without cludge. .. i do.. and even the segwit dev that coded segwit does. he uses legacy addresses still

[supermankid]

Big thanks to all. Always learning new things here..one more hints leads to other and down the rabbit hole…interesting thing..this Bitcoin

[odolvlobo]

but even you eventually came to the right conclusion.. lazy devs (or more precisely devs only interested in features they get paid to implement)

The ultimate display of laziness is complaining about the lack of a feature in open source software.

[OgNasty]

but even you eventually came to the right conclusion.. lazy devs (or more precisely devs only interested in features they get paid to implement)

The ultimate display of laziness is complaining about the lack of a feature in open source software.

I'm not sure if I'd agree with that.  Have you ever ordered DoorDash because you didn't feel like making yourself a meal?  That's the ultimate display of laziness. 

Complaining about lack of features in decade old software that's safeguarding a trillion dollars of value and being billed as the future of global finance seems reasonable.  It's crazy to me that there's no metamask style wallet for Bitcoiners to log into websites yet.  An entire generation of people are being introduced to crypto and don't even see Bitcoin as an option for them, because they're told they'll earn no yield and they're not supposed to use it for anything, just hodl it.  I don't blame people for moving to other coins that they can actually do things with.  Will we ever get a Bitcoin metaverse?  Who knows, but with blocksize restrictions and Lightning lacking usability/features, I know I won't be the one building it.

[pooya87]

An entire generation of people are being introduced to crypto and don't even see Bitcoin as an option for them, because they're told they'll earn no yield and they're not supposed to use it for anything, just hodl it.  I don't blame people for moving to other coins that they can actually do things with.

That's a contradiction because nobody does anything with altcoins except making money either through speculation (pump and dump altcoins) or through scamming (tokens: ICO, IEO, STO, NFT, DeFi,...).

[franky1]

when you ignore users desires for features, and instead want to just kiss ass a dev. you forget what the devs job is
their job is not to be an idol. its not to be a face you can trust.
hint: trust the code. not the human

i personally can and have in my own full node wallet got the ability to associate the message signing of segwit key with a P2wpk address at a gui level. but that does not help the majority who may want to verify my messages as they are mostly using core.. which does not have such feature, so although i can verify my own message done via segwit addresses. for the pure fact of majority centralised following of core. i prefer to use legacy keys to make other peoples lives easier, and infact my own life easier. because trying to get core to do anything outside their corporate roadmap is just met with resistance and hostility. so using legacy is just easier for all involved when it comes to message signing and other flaws of segwit

this topic proves people want a feature that should have been available 5 years ago. and 5 years later its still not there. so that proves devs laziness and arrogance to average joe users needs.

other topics of BITCOIN scaling. show thousands of average joe(the real community) want bitcoin features and protocol changes.. yet those are met with hostility and sales pitches of using other networks as "the solution" again avoiding any code changes that go against the corporate roadmap

we should be protecting the code and wanting the code to do things the AVERAGE JOE user wants. you know the unbanked, the everyday person that wants something thats different to the fiat control of the elites
you know, the thing bitcoin was invented for in the first place..

yes bitcoin is 'open source' but thats just a buzzword for 'you can read our code' now that core are pretty much incharge.

when it comes to welcoming membership of the dev team. there is a closed hierarchy. where only a select few are welcomed. and allowed priority access to certain things

take the recent integration of its newest member, gloria. she is part of the corporate sponsorship.
in a team called brinks which is funded by the same corporation as blockstream, chaincode labs.. that fund the other top level devs.. no coincidence..
where her boss in brinks is one of the guys that merged her keys into the core maintainer list. her colleagues in brinks, chaincode labs and blockstream(all funded by same corporation(DCG)) are very same guys that 'ack' her application into the core dev list. .. because the corporate sponsor groups are the same as the main top hierarchy devs inside core.

do you really think she was surprisingly offered a job via a open community bitcoin mailing list, or a bitcoin IRC or a github comment.. no she was selected privately in her corporate group beforehand. and the announcement in the bitcoin publishments were just the press release after the decision, made to look like it was a 'bitcoin open community' decision

hey i know you want to say "ignore it its meaningless" but if you ignore the dev team of cores actions. you might aswell just give them a free pass to do whatever they want and not scrutinise/review their work and simply just human flaw emotional "Trust and adore blindly' the humans you fan girl over. and not want to defend the code from abuse. .
sorry but when people prefer to kiss a dev and not want to defend the code. thats where abuse happens.

i iknow you probably itching to rebuttal the usual scripts of 'but bitcoin works'. while ignoring this very topics need of a feature that was left unfinished. and ignoring the cludge of how segwit was wrote and implemented. where people find it easier to just use legacy as the work around.
(and all the other stuff average joe have asked for since 2015 with hundreds of topics from thousands of people wanting it, that are still not available today)

for anyone that has tried to make a REFERENCE client of a full node thats not part of the 'core' dev branding, they get treated like outsiders, competition, threat. thus everyone ends up relying on core.. like zombies
(note events of 2014-2017)

core has become the central CORE of the protocol evolution where people no longer just make their own wallet to then offer the community an opportunity to upgrade the protocol or have a standardised feature all wallets follow.

..instead an upgrade to the protocol requires proving to core devs that they should implement it in core because everyone follows cores lead. its why they branded themselves 'core' to be at the CENTER

even your buddies are unfortunately indoctrinated into the "trust and adore blindly' mindset. by saying the usual crap of 'if you want a feature, fork off, make an alt and see who follows it' rather than thinking there should be multiple reference clients on the bitcoin network offering protocol upgrades that become standardised across all wallets.
.. so now everyone just ends up using core software. and ontop of that just blindly trusts core, 'cos fandom'

so when core devs make decisions to ignore users wanting features and treat any bip thats not part of the core devs roadmap, as a threat or whatever excuse they find. then that is where the devs are not doing their job properly
yes core devs do add features. but not the ones average joe want. they add the ones corporations want.

people want cheap fee's and the ability to use BITCOIN without being told that their transaction is not worthy or that only the elite should have the blockspace and where the 2billion unbanked should not get to use bitcoin because they simply dont earn enough to pay the fee. thus all the 'unbanked' features promised of bitcoin to average joe in the early days have gone.

the corporations wanted new opt-in tx formats to use as locks/pegs to bridge to other networks. guess which features take priority. and which features are forgotten about once the corps get their basic features added

yep segwit got implemented so that LN, liquid, and other sidechains can then lock bitcoin. to then reference those locks for their altnet pegged units of measure. but because message signing was not part of the corporation requirements of the sponsored project, core devs didnt add that. and so normal average joe that doesnt need to use segwit for locking up funds, but may want just an address that has all the stuff legacy has, finds segwit lacking, because its incomplete in comparison to legacy
and no dont BS me with the 'segwit offers fee discount'. no . reality is the cludge of pushing segwit in, came with  making legacy 4x more expensive not the other way round(not to make segwit cheaper). thus users didnt get the discount compared to their 2015-16 experience.

when devs and their fangirls tell the unbanked and average joe "bitcoin doesnt want you, so here try this different network the corporations created, its better".. you should wake up to see that its the devs that are the problem

when devs and their fangirls tell average joe "bitcoin doesnt want your feature go fork off and see who follows your altcoin, we are not interested in your feature".. you should wake up to see that its the devs that are the problem

when devs dont admit their own human laziness and arrogance and greed of sponsorship for the roadmap. and instead put in limits and then blame the code (which they wrote) pretending its a code problem and not a dev politics problem. you should wake up to see that its the devs that are the problem

but when you(as i have seen you and your buddy group do) instead want to call out bitcoin as being limited/unable to handle users/[insert other nonsense]. and then go straight to human trust obedient loyal ass kissery to protect the devs(humans).. you are not thinking about bitcoin(code). you are social drama kissing humans

yea i your group mindset pretending to protect certain things with "devs should not be told what to do", pretending its about keeping devs from implementing bad things..
but here is the thing.. they are paid by corporate interests to do what they are told to implement features even though those features are cludgy and unfinished for the normal user experience. where the user experience is not what it seems or as promised/promoted to them

and no dont even try the BS about the low level devs that just review, spellcheck, or add comments.. as your rebuttal way of trying to pretend core devs are 'decentralised'  im talking about the actual maintainers and main committers and merger devs that make the actual decisions of what gets in who are all sponsored by the same main corporation

[dkbit98]

The first question: is this possible in bitcoin core?
I want a way to verify the ownership of my address by signing a message

You can't do it with BitcoinCore wallet currently, but you are not limited of using only that wallet, unless you are not running a full node with complete Bitcoin blockchain.
If you own hardware wallet Trezor (you can also connect it with full node) you can sign and verify message even for Bech32 address types using their Trezor Suite app.
You can create as many Bitcoin addresses as you want and you are not limited for using only one.

[franky1]

The first question: is this possible in bitcoin core?
I want a way to verify the ownership of my address by signing a message

You can't do it with BitcoinCore wallet currently, but you are not limited of using only that wallet, unless you are not running a full node with complete Bitcoin blockchain.
If you own hardware wallet Trezor (you can also connect it with full node) you can sign and verify message even for Bech32 address types using their Trezor Suite app.
You can create as many Bitcoin addresses as you want and you are not limited for using only one.

you dont even need a wallet to verify other peoples addresses. (though you shouldnt trust random signing websites/toolkits)
but yes core does offer it even after 5 years of release and 7 years of testing

however if he wants to use an address he owns where other people want to verify him. they cant verify him in their core thus they would need to use something else..
and no point verifying himself.

so again rather then getting people to download other wallets, or buy hardware or use a random website/toolkit.. just use legacy. it works on all wallets.. simple

[dkbit98]

so again rather then getting people to download other wallets, or buy hardware or use a random website/toolkit.. just use legacy. it works on all wallets.. simple

Some people need to prove ownership of segwit address for specific legal purposes, so you can't force someone to use old legacy addresses.
If any other tool works and if it's open source than I see no problem using this when it's needed, but I am not forcing anyone to download, buy or use anything they don't want to use.

[franky1]

so again rather then getting people to download other wallets, or buy hardware or use a random website/toolkit.. just use legacy. it works on all wallets.. simple

Some people need to prove ownership of segwit address for specific legal purposes, so you can't force someone to use old legacy addresses.
If any other tool works and if it's open source than I see no problem using this when it's needed, but I am not forcing anyone to download, buy or use anything they don't want to use.

the fun thing about addresses are that they are not by law required to be linked to a person.
you can ofcourse move funds to a legacy address and then make that your identity key moving forward with the convenience of having said key easy to verify. its actually about freedom.. and utility. so.. use the freedom and utility.

its not about force.. however core devs are trying to force people to use segwit more by trying to make legacy no longer default, no longer the preferred, even while segwit is cludgy and unfinished. but hey. its core, its their decision, and people dont have an alternative to even have a majority choice.

if core make it a rule to not allow a spend from/to legacy tx into a block meaning no legacy UTXO(destination addresses) whilst still having cludgy segwit as is.. then they are not thinking about the users at all.