BIP Proposal: Wallet Interface
7 messages, 22 to 25 Dec 2020. Started by monokh.
monokh (2), Luke Dashjr, Omar Shibli, Erik Aronesty, Aymeric Vitte, Shane Jonas
Hi
This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and rather focus on the spec.
Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing efforts, relevant specs or use cases.
------------------------------
A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications
## Abstract
This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a standard.
## Summary
Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as follows in javascript:
``` { // Wallet Metadata wallet: { name: 'Bitcoin Core' },
// Request access to the wallet for the current host async enable: (),
// Request addresses and signatures from wallet async request ({ method, params }) } ```
In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be exposed.
## Motivation
Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.
Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of usable bitcoin applications.
With a standardised wallet API:
- Wallets have a clear API to implement - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice for users
If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be developed more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This creates a positive feedback loop.
## Specification
For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web applications running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily implemented in other contexts.
### General Rules
- For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always prompt the user for confirmation
### Types
**UserDeniedError** An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied by the user Type: Error
**Hex** Type: String Example: `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`
**Address** Address details Type: Object Example:
``` { "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs", "publicKey": "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a", "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0" } ```
### API
The wallet must implement the following methods.
**enable**
The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet.
If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity.
**`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
**request**
The request method must take one parameter in the following format:
``` { "method": "wallet_methodName", "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"] } ```
For a list of mandatory methods see Table
The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved.
Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for confirmation
On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the method table.
**`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
**Mandatory methods**
method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1, change = false`] return: `[ Address ]` error: UserDeniedError
method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]` return: Signature `Hex` error: UserDeniedError
method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]` return: `psbtBase64` error: UserDeniedError
method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]` return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst` error: UserDeniedError
## Rationale
The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other requests such as node RPC calls.
**Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?** The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.
**Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, getUtxos, ... ?** A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usage. The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to do the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement these functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.
## Security Implications
Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally as the security and privacy of the user is at risk.
### Signing
Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded behind confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked.
### Privacy
Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys. Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet could protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to give the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow the option to expose only selected derivation paths.
-monokh
1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for their wallet. 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area.
On Tuesday 22 December 2020 14:43:11 monokh via bitcoin-dev wrote:
Quoted text (202 lines)
> Hi
>
> This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is
> to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on
> that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing
> bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be
> seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of
> such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and
> rather focus on the spec.
>
> Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing efforts,
> relevant specs or use cases.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications
>
> ## Abstract
>
> This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a
> standard.
>
> ## Summary
>
> Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing
> functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as
> follows in javascript:
>
> ```
> {
> // Wallet Metadata
> wallet: {
> name: 'Bitcoin Core'
> },
>
> // Request access to the wallet for the current host
> async enable: (),
>
> // Request addresses and signatures from wallet
> async request ({ method, params })
> }
> ```
>
> In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a
> webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not
> intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be
> exposed.
>
> ## Motivation
>
> Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or
> otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only
> simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other
> requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.
>
> Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their
> interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and
> maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and
> unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of
> usable bitcoin applications.
>
> With a standardised wallet API:
>
> - Wallets have a clear API to implement
> - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour
> - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice
> for users
>
> If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be developed
> more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This
> creates a positive feedback loop.
>
> ## Specification
>
> For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web applications
> running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily
> implemented in other contexts.
>
> ### General Rules
>
> - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always
> prompt the user for confirmation
>
> ### Types
>
> **UserDeniedError**
> An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied by
> the user
> Type: Error
>
> **Hex**
> Type: String
> Example:
> `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`
>
> **Address**
> Address details
> Type: Object
> Example:
>
> ```
> {
> "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs",
> "publicKey":
> "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a",
> "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0"
> }
> ```
>
> ### API
>
> The wallet must implement the following methods.
>
> **enable**
>
> The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet.
>
> If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the
> wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity.
>
> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>
> **request**
>
> The request method must take one parameter in the following format:
>
> ```
> {
> "method": "wallet_methodName",
> "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
> }
> ```
>
> For a list of mandatory methods see Table
>
> The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved.
>
> Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for
> confirmation
>
> On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the
> method table.
>
> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>
> **Mandatory methods**
>
> method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1, change
> = false`]
> return: `[ Address ]`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]`
> return: Signature `Hex`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]`
> return: `psbtBase64`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]`
> return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> ## Rationale
>
> The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet
> operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other
> requests such as node RPC calls.
>
> **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?**
> The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is
> much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.
>
> **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance,
> getUtxos, ... ?**
> A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usage.
> The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to do
> the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement these
> functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.
>
> ## Security Implications
>
> Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally as
> the security and privacy of the user is at risk.
>
> ### Signing
>
> Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded behind
> confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the
> transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the
> inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked.
>
> ### Privacy
>
> Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys.
> Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet could
> protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to give
> the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow
> the option to expose only selected derivation paths.
>
> -monokhThanks for the input Luke.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for their
wallet.
Indeed. Holding keys in the browser can be very insecure, however the spec is not limited to this. I will amend to make this clear. The same interface can be used to communicate from a web context or even desktop application with hardware wallets where keys are segregated safely. The prominent hardware wallets already have such an interface. Unfortunately as there has been no standardisation, an application must specifically provide an implementation for each wallet to be compatible.
Quoted text (1 line)
> 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area.
Please share if you have specifics in mind. What has been considered were mainly hardware wallet apis. The requests have been defined such that they would be compatible. I will make references to such considerations in the text. I welcome any feedback on what may be missing or problematic for these providers - something I will also pursue outwith the thread.
-monokh
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:15 AM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
Quoted text (224 lines)
> 1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for their
> wallet.
> 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area.
>
> On Tuesday 22 December 2020 14:43:11 monokh via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is
> > to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on
> > that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing
> > bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be
> > seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of
> > such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and
> > rather focus on the spec.
> >
> > Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing
> efforts,
> > relevant specs or use cases.
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications
> >
> > ## Abstract
> >
> > This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a
> > standard.
> >
> > ## Summary
> >
> > Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing
> > functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as
> > follows in javascript:
> >
> > ```
> > {
> > // Wallet Metadata
> > wallet: {
> > name: 'Bitcoin Core'
> > },
> >
> > // Request access to the wallet for the current host
> > async enable: (),
> >
> > // Request addresses and signatures from wallet
> > async request ({ method, params })
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a
> > webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not
> > intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be
> > exposed.
> >
> > ## Motivation
> >
> > Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or
> > otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only
> > simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other
> > requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.
> >
> > Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in
> their
> > interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and
> > maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs
> and
> > unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption
> of
> > usable bitcoin applications.
> >
> > With a standardised wallet API:
> >
> > - Wallets have a clear API to implement
> > - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour
> > - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice
> > for users
> >
> > If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be
> developed
> > more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This
> > creates a positive feedback loop.
> >
> > ## Specification
> >
> > For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web
> applications
> > running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily
> > implemented in other contexts.
> >
> > ### General Rules
> >
> > - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always
> > prompt the user for confirmation
> >
> > ### Types
> >
> > **UserDeniedError**
> > An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied
> by
> > the user
> > Type: Error
> >
> > **Hex**
> > Type: String
> > Example:
> > `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`
> >
> > **Address**
> > Address details
> > Type: Object
> > Example:
> >
> > ```
> > {
> > "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs",
> > "publicKey":
> > "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a",
> > "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0"
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > ### API
> >
> > The wallet must implement the following methods.
> >
> > **enable**
> >
> > The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet.
> >
> > If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the
> > wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity.
> >
> > **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
> >
> > **request**
> >
> > The request method must take one parameter in the following format:
> >
> > ```
> > {
> > "method": "wallet_methodName",
> > "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > For a list of mandatory methods see Table
> >
> > The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved.
> >
> > Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for
> > confirmation
> >
> > On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the
> > method table.
> >
> > **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
> >
> > **Mandatory methods**
> >
> > method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1,
> change
> > = false`]
> > return: `[ Address ]`
> > error: UserDeniedError
> >
> > method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]`
> > return: Signature `Hex`
> > error: UserDeniedError
> >
> > method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]`
> > return: `psbtBase64`
> > error: UserDeniedError
> >
> > method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]`
> > return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst`
> > error: UserDeniedError
> >
> > ## Rationale
> >
> > The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet
> > operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other
> > requests such as node RPC calls.
> >
> > **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?**
> > The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is
> > much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.
> >
> > **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance,
> > getUtxos, ... ?**
> > A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for
> usage.
> > The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to
> do
> > the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement
> these
> > functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.
> >
> > ## Security Implications
> >
> > Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally
> as
> > the security and privacy of the user is at risk.
> >
> > ### Signing
> >
> > Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded
> behind
> > confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the
> > transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the
> > inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked.
> >
> > ### Privacy
> >
> > Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys.
> > Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet
> could
> > protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to
> give
> > the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow
> > the option to expose only selected derivation paths.
> >
> > -monokh
>
>That's a great idea, in traditional banking there are wide initiatives to standardize components between different actors, most widely used is Open Banking , i think regardless of the usage, it could be hardware or software, there is a big value in standrizating communications between different components.
Here is more info about Open Banking: https://fin.plaid.com/articles/what-is-the-open-banking-standard/#:~:text=The%20Open%20Banking%20Standard%20relies,data%20through%20their%20bank%20accounts
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:42 AM monokh via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (263 lines)
> Thanks for the input Luke.
>
> > 1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for
> their wallet.
>
> Indeed. Holding keys in the browser can be very insecure, however the spec
> is not limited to this. I will amend to make this clear. The same interface
> can be used to communicate from a web context or even desktop application
> with hardware wallets where keys are segregated safely. The prominent
> hardware wallets already have such an interface. Unfortunately as there has
> been no standardisation, an application must specifically provide an
> implementation for each wallet to be compatible.
>
> > 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area.
>
> Please share if you have specifics in mind. What has been considered were
> mainly hardware wallet apis. The requests have been defined such that they
> would be compatible. I will make references to such considerations in the
> text. I welcome any feedback on what may be missing or problematic for
> these providers - something I will also pursue outwith the thread.
>
> -monokh
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:15 AM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
>> 1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for their
>> wallet.
>> 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area.
>>
>> On Tuesday 22 December 2020 14:43:11 monokh via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention
>> is
>> > to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on
>> > that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing
>> > bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be
>> > seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of
>> > such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and
>> > rather focus on the spec.
>> >
>> > Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing
>> efforts,
>> > relevant specs or use cases.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications
>> >
>> > ## Abstract
>> >
>> > This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a
>> > standard.
>> >
>> > ## Summary
>> >
>> > Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing
>> > functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as
>> > follows in javascript:
>> >
>> > ```
>> > {
>> > // Wallet Metadata
>> > wallet: {
>> > name: 'Bitcoin Core'
>> > },
>> >
>> > // Request access to the wallet for the current host
>> > async enable: (),
>> >
>> > // Request addresses and signatures from wallet
>> > async request ({ method, params })
>> > }
>> > ```
>> >
>> > In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a
>> > webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not
>> > intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should
>> be
>> > exposed.
>> >
>> > ## Motivation
>> >
>> > Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web
>> or
>> > otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only
>> > simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces
>> other
>> > requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.
>> >
>> > Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in
>> their
>> > interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and
>> > maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs
>> and
>> > unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the
>> adoption of
>> > usable bitcoin applications.
>> >
>> > With a standardised wallet API:
>> >
>> > - Wallets have a clear API to implement
>> > - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and
>> behaviour
>> > - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing
>> choice
>> > for users
>> >
>> > If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be
>> developed
>> > more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This
>> > creates a positive feedback loop.
>> >
>> > ## Specification
>> >
>> > For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web
>> applications
>> > running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily
>> > implemented in other contexts.
>> >
>> > ### General Rules
>> >
>> > - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always
>> > prompt the user for confirmation
>> >
>> > ### Types
>> >
>> > **UserDeniedError**
>> > An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied
>> by
>> > the user
>> > Type: Error
>> >
>> > **Hex**
>> > Type: String
>> > Example:
>> > `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`
>> >
>> > **Address**
>> > Address details
>> > Type: Object
>> > Example:
>> >
>> > ```
>> > {
>> > "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs",
>> > "publicKey":
>> > "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a",
>> > "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0"
>> > }
>> > ```
>> >
>> > ### API
>> >
>> > The wallet must implement the following methods.
>> >
>> > **enable**
>> >
>> > The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet.
>> >
>> > If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the
>> > wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity.
>> >
>> > **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>> >
>> > **request**
>> >
>> > The request method must take one parameter in the following format:
>> >
>> > ```
>> > {
>> > "method": "wallet_methodName",
>> > "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
>> > }
>> > ```
>> >
>> > For a list of mandatory methods see Table
>> >
>> > The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been
>> resolved.
>> >
>> > Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user
>> for
>> > confirmation
>> >
>> > On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the
>> > method table.
>> >
>> > **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>> >
>> > **Mandatory methods**
>> >
>> > method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1,
>> change
>> > = false`]
>> > return: `[ Address ]`
>> > error: UserDeniedError
>> >
>> > method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]`
>> > return: Signature `Hex`
>> > error: UserDeniedError
>> >
>> > method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address]
>> ]`
>> > return: `psbtBase64`
>> > error: UserDeniedError
>> >
>> > method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]`
>> > return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst`
>> > error: UserDeniedError
>> >
>> > ## Rationale
>> >
>> > The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet
>> > operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other
>> > requests such as node RPC calls.
>> >
>> > **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?**
>> > The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is
>> > much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.
>> >
>> > **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance,
>> > getUtxos, ... ?**
>> > A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for
>> usage.
>> > The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to
>> do
>> > the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement
>> these
>> > functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.
>> >
>> > ## Security Implications
>> >
>> > Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality
>> externally as
>> > the security and privacy of the user is at risk.
>> >
>> > ### Signing
>> >
>> > Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded
>> behind
>> > confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the
>> > transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs,
>> the
>> > inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked.
>> >
>> > ### Privacy
>> >
>> > Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys.
>> > Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet
>> could
>> > protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to
>> give
>> > the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow
>> > the option to expose only selected derivation paths.
>> >
>> > -monokh
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>Obviously Bitcoin has a wallet api, intermingled with other protocol APIs:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list
For security, a standard wallet API should write a token/port to a local file where the user can grab that token and use it (that's basically how the existing bitcoind does it, with a username/password living in a file... not as nice as a token/port, IMO)
Probably any such standards document should do its best to be compatible with the existing APIs that so many are already familiar with. Or maybe I misunderstand the proposal.
- Erik
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM monokh via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (160 lines)
>
> Hi
>
> This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and rather focus on the spec.
>
> Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing efforts, relevant specs or use cases.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications
>
> ## Abstract
>
> This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a standard.
>
> ## Summary
>
> Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as follows in javascript:
>
> ```
> {
> // Wallet Metadata
> wallet: {
> name: 'Bitcoin Core'
> },
>
> // Request access to the wallet for the current host
> async enable: (),
>
> // Request addresses and signatures from wallet
> async request ({ method, params })
> }
> ```
>
> In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be exposed.
>
> ## Motivation
>
> Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications.
>
> Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of usable bitcoin applications.
>
> With a standardised wallet API:
>
> - Wallets have a clear API to implement
> - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour
> - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice for users
>
> If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be developed more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This creates a positive feedback loop.
>
> ## Specification
>
> For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web applications running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily implemented in other contexts.
>
> ### General Rules
>
> - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always prompt the user for confirmation
>
> ### Types
>
> **UserDeniedError**
> An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied by the user
> Type: Error
>
> **Hex**
> Type: String
> Example: `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"`
>
> **Address**
> Address details
> Type: Object
> Example:
>
> ```
> {
> "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs",
> "publicKey": "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a",
> "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0"
> }
> ```
>
> ### API
>
> The wallet must implement the following methods.
>
> **enable**
>
> The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet.
>
> If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity.
>
> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>
> **request**
>
> The request method must take one parameter in the following format:
>
> ```
> {
> "method": "wallet_methodName",
> "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"]
> }
> ```
>
> For a list of mandatory methods see Table
>
> The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved.
>
> Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for confirmation
>
> On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the method table.
>
> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected.
>
> **Mandatory methods**
>
> method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1, change = false`]
> return: `[ Address ]`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]`
> return: Signature `Hex`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]`
> return: `psbtBase64`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]`
> return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst`
> error: UserDeniedError
>
> ## Rationale
>
> The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other requests such as node RPC calls.
>
> **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?**
> The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is much more flexible to instead define an abstract format.
>
> **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, getUtxos, ... ?**
> A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usage. The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to do the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement these functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet.
>
> ## Security Implications
>
> Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally as the security and privacy of the user is at risk.
>
> ### Signing
>
> Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded behind confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked.
>
> ### Privacy
>
> Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys. Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet could protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to give the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow the option to expose only selected derivation paths.
>
> -monokh
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-devResending to the list since I am using a different email
Complement: if anonymity is required from the browser (or elsewhere) you might consider looking at https://github.com/Ayms/node-Tor too
Le 24/12/2020 à 20:40, Aymeric Vitte a écrit :
Quoted text (330 lines)
> > You might want to take a look at: https://peersm.com/wallet > > And https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions > > "wallet" is not the very correct word, it's more bitcoin cli outside > of bitcoin core but for now not linked to an explorer/tx system which > makes it probably still not so easy to use for the transactions part > (which can be extended to lightning, etc) > > The idea is to propose to people most of the tools they need to manage > their coins by themselves, or at least understand better what they are > doing > > "People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for > their wallet." --> yes and no, please crack the standalone webapp > above, so it's finally a no when things are done correctly, of course > there is no story of keys storage inside browsers or online stuff with > keys > > Maybe this can be turned one day into a w3c api like webcrypto > (window.bitcoin as you sketch) > > Le 23/12/2020 à 08:29, monokh via bitcoin-dev a écrit : >> Thanks for the input Luke. >> >> > 1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers for >> their wallet. >> >> Indeed. Holding keys in the browser can be very insecure, however the >> spec is not limited to this. I will amend to make this clear. The >> same interface can be used to communicate from a web context or even >> desktop application with hardware wallets where keys are segregated >> safely. The prominent hardware wallets already have such an >> interface. Unfortunately as there has been no standardisation, an >> application must specifically provide an implementation for each >> wallet to be compatible. >> >> > 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area. >> >> Please share if you have specifics in mind. What has been considered >> were mainly hardware wallet apis. The requests have been defined such >> that they would be compatible. I will make references to such >> considerations in the text. I welcome any feedback on what may be >> missing or problematic for these providers - something I will also >> pursue outwith the thread. >> >> -monokh >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 2:15 AM Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org >> <mailto:luke@dashjr.org>> wrote: >> >> 1) People should not be encouraged to write or use web browsers >> for their >> wallet. >> 2) You may want to look over earlier work in this area. >> >> On Tuesday 22 December 2020 14:43:11 monokh via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main >> intention is >> > to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can >> agree on >> > that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can >> enable writing >> > bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web >> that can be >> > seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have >> implementations of >> > such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a >> promotion and >> > rather focus on the spec. >> > >> > Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are >> existing efforts, >> > relevant specs or use cases. >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications >> > >> > ## Abstract >> > >> > This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a >> > standard. >> > >> > ## Summary >> > >> > Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing >> > functions to external applications. The interface would be >> expressed as >> > follows in javascript: >> > >> > ``` >> > { >> > // Wallet Metadata >> > wallet: { >> > name: 'Bitcoin Core' >> > }, >> > >> > // Request access to the wallet for the current host >> > async enable: (), >> > >> > // Request addresses and signatures from wallet >> > async request ({ method, params }) >> > } >> > ``` >> > >> > In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top >> level of a >> > webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec >> does not >> > intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces >> should be >> > exposed. >> > >> > ## Motivation >> > >> > Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, >> applications (web or >> > otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. >> Generally only >> > simple sends have been available. A more robust API that >> introduces other >> > requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications. >> > >> > Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included >> inconsistencies in their >> > interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to >> build and >> > maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk >> of bugs and >> > unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the >> adoption of >> > usable bitcoin applications. >> > >> > With a standardised wallet API: >> > >> > - Wallets have a clear API to implement >> > - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and >> behaviour >> > - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, >> increasing choice >> > for users >> > >> > If more wallets implement the specification, applications will >> be developed >> > more confidently by benefiting from the wallet >> interoperability. This >> > creates a positive feedback loop. >> > >> > ## Specification >> > >> > For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web >> applications >> > running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to >> be easily >> > implemented in other contexts. >> > >> > ### General Rules >> > >> > - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software >> should always >> > prompt the user for confirmation >> > >> > ### Types >> > >> > **UserDeniedError** >> > An error type indicating that the application's request has >> been denied by >> > the user >> > Type: Error >> > >> > **Hex** >> > Type: String >> > Example: >> > >> `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"` >> > >> > **Address** >> > Address details >> > Type: Object >> > Example: >> > >> > ``` >> > { >> > "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs", >> > "publicKey": >> > >> "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a", >> > "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0" >> > } >> > ``` >> > >> > ### API >> > >> > The wallet must implement the following methods. >> > >> > **enable** >> > >> > The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet. >> > >> > If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) >> of the >> > wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an >> identity. >> > >> > **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected. >> > >> > **request** >> > >> > The request method must take one parameter in the following format: >> > >> > ``` >> > { >> > "method": "wallet_methodName", >> > "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"] >> > } >> > ``` >> > >> > For a list of mandatory methods see Table >> > >> > The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been >> resolved. >> > >> > Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt >> the user for >> > confirmation >> > >> > On success the request should resolve to the response as >> defined in the >> > method table. >> > >> > **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected. >> > >> > **Mandatory methods** >> > >> > method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses >> = 1, change >> > = false`] >> > return: `[ Address ]` >> > error: UserDeniedError >> > >> > method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]` >> > return: Signature `Hex` >> > error: UserDeniedError >> > >> > method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, >> address] ]` >> > return: `psbtBase64` >> > error: UserDeniedError >> > >> > method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]` >> > return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst` >> > error: UserDeniedError >> > >> > ## Rationale >> > >> > The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet >> > operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve >> for other >> > requests such as node RPC calls. >> > >> > **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?** >> > The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, >> therefore it is >> > much more flexible to instead define an abstract format. >> > >> > **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, >> > getUtxos, ... ?** >> > A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario >> for usage. >> > The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to >> applications to do >> > the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they >> implement these >> > functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet. >> > >> > ## Security Implications >> > >> > Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality >> externally as >> > the security and privacy of the user is at risk. >> > >> > ### Signing >> > >> > Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be >> guarded behind >> > confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the >> nature of the >> > transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the >> outputs, the >> > inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked. >> > >> > ### Privacy >> > >> > Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public >> keys. >> > Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the >> wallet could >> > protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just >> needs to give >> > the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could >> also allow >> > the option to expose only selected derivation paths. >> > >> > -monokh >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > -- > Sophia-Antipolis, France > LinkedIn: https://fr.linkedin.com/in/aymeric-vitte-05855b26 > Move your coins by yourself (browser version): https://peersm.com/wallet > Bitcoin transactions made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-transactions > Zcash wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets > Bitcoin wallets made simple: https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets > Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: http://peersm.com/getblocklist > Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass > Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org > Peersm : http://www.peersm.com > torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live > node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor > GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
There’s a BIP to create a standard API document for the Bitcoin JSON-RPC API https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/776
here’s an example of the generic ethereum api https://github.com/etclabscore/ethereum-json-rpc-specification/blob/master/openrpc.json
and another example of just the wallet interface https://github.com/etclabscore/signatory/blob/master/openrpc.json
here’s a live demo with interactive documentation:
Creating a standard api document like this makes it a lot easier to build dev tools and documentation.
I’d love to help document the bitcoin JSON-RPC API, let me know how I can help.
Quoted text (183 lines)
> On Dec 23, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > > Obviously Bitcoin has a wallet api, intermingled with other protocol APIs: > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list > > For security, a standard wallet API should write a token/port to a > local file where the user can grab that token and use it (that's > basically how the existing bitcoind does it, with a username/password > living in a file... not as nice as a token/port, IMO) > > Probably any such standards document should do its best to be > compatible with the existing APIs that so many are already familiar > with. Or maybe I misunderstand the proposal. > > - Erik > >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM monokh via bitcoin-dev >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> This is a first draft of a BIP we intend to submit. The main intention is to define a simple interface that wallets and applications can agree on that would cover the vast majority of use cases. This can enable writing bitcoin applications (e.g. time lock, multi sig) on the web that can be seamlessly used with any compatible wallets. We have implementations of such examples but I don't want to turn this thread into a promotion and rather focus on the spec. >> >> Appreciate input from the list. Please share if there are existing efforts, relevant specs or use cases. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> A wallet interface specification for bitcoin applications >> >> ## Abstract >> >> This BIP describes an API for Bitcoin wallets and applications as a standard. >> >> ## Summary >> >> Bitcoin wallets should expose their address derivation and signing functions to external applications. The interface would be expressed as follows in javascript: >> >> ``` >> { >> // Wallet Metadata >> wallet: { >> name: 'Bitcoin Core' >> }, >> >> // Request access to the wallet for the current host >> async enable: (), >> >> // Request addresses and signatures from wallet >> async request ({ method, params }) >> } >> ``` >> >> In the web context the interface could be exposed at the top level of a webpage, for example under `window.bitcoin`. However this spec does not intend to define any standards for how and where the interfaces should be exposed. >> >> ## Motivation >> >> Due to the seldom available APIs exposed by wallets, applications (web or otherwise) are limited in how they are able to interact. Generally only simple sends have been available. A more robust API that introduces other requests will promote richer Bitcoin applications. >> >> Additionally, wallet APIs have frequently included inconsistencies in their interfaces and behaviour. This has required applications to build and maintain a separate client for each wallet, increasing the risk of bugs and unintended behaviour as well as being a limiting factor for the adoption of usable bitcoin applications. >> >> With a standardised wallet API: >> >> - Wallets have a clear API to implement >> - Applications have a clear expectation of wallet interface and behaviour >> - Applications become agnostic to the wallet specifics, increasing choice for users >> >> If more wallets implement the specification, applications will be developed more confidently by benefiting from the wallet interoperability. This creates a positive feedback loop. >> >> ## Specification >> >> For simplicity, the interface is defined in the context of web applications running in the browser (JS) however, they are simple enough to be easily implemented in other contexts. >> >> ### General Rules >> >> - For sensitive functions (e.g. signing), wallet software should always prompt the user for confirmation >> >> ### Types >> >> **UserDeniedError** >> An error type indicating that the application's request has been denied by the user >> Type: Error >> >> **Hex** >> Type: String >> Example: `"0000000000000000000a24677957d1e50d70e67c513d220dbe8868c4c3aefc08"` >> >> **Address** >> Address details >> Type: Object >> Example: >> >> ``` >> { >> "address": "bc1qn0fqlzamcfuahq6xuujrq08ex7e26agt20gexs", >> "publicKey": "02ad58c0dced71a236f4073c3b6f0ee27dde6fe96978e9a9c9500172e3f1886e5a", >> "derivationPath": "84'/1'/0'/0/0" >> } >> ``` >> >> ### API >> >> The wallet must implement the following methods. >> >> **enable** >> >> The enable call prompts the user for access to the wallet. >> >> If successful, it resolves to an address (`**Address**` type) of the wallet. Typically the first external address to be used as an identity. >> >> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected. >> >> **request** >> >> The request method must take one parameter in the following format: >> >> ``` >> { >> "method": "wallet_methodName", >> "params": ["foo", "bar", "baz"] >> } >> ``` >> >> For a list of mandatory methods see Table >> >> The wallet should reject request calls unless `enable` has been resolved. >> >> Sensitive requests that involve signing should always prompt the user for confirmation >> >> On success the request should resolve to the response as defined in the method table. >> >> **`UserDeniedError`** will be thrown if the request is rejected. >> >> **Mandatory methods** >> >> method: `wallet_getAddresses` params: [`index = 0, numAddresses = 1, change = false`] >> return: `[ Address ]` >> error: UserDeniedError >> >> method: `wallet_signMessage` params: `[ message, address ]` >> return: Signature `Hex` >> error: UserDeniedError >> >> method: `wallet_signPSBT` params: `[ [psbtBase64, inputIndex, address] ]` >> return: `psbtBase64` >> error: UserDeniedError >> >> method: `wallet_getConnectedNetwork` params: `[]` >> return: Network object `mainnet` | `testnet` | `regetst` >> error: UserDeniedError >> >> ## Rationale >> >> The purpose of the API is to expose a set of commonly used wallet operations. In addition, it should be flexible enough to serve for other requests such as node RPC calls. >> >> **Why is there a singular request call instead of named methods?** >> The transport layer for the requests cannot be assumed, therefore it is much more flexible to instead define an abstract format. >> >> **Why are the mandatory methods so primitive? Where is getBalance, getUtxos, ... ?** >> A wallet need not worry about providing every possible scenario for usage. The primitives of keys and signing can expose enough to applications to do the rest. Applications should have flexibility in how they implement these functions. It is the role of a library rather than the wallet. >> >> ## Security Implications >> >> Great care should be taken when exposing wallet functionality externally as the security and privacy of the user is at risk. >> >> ### Signing >> >> Operations that trigger signing using private keys should be guarded behind confirmation screens where the user is fully aware of the nature of the transaction. In the example of a PSBT signature request, the outputs, the inputs and which key is being used should be clearly marked. >> >> ### Privacy >> >> Some api methods expose metadata about the user, such as public keys. Depending on how privacy focused the wallet intends to be, the wallet could protect these behind a confirmation. Commonly the wallet just needs to give the origin access to all of its public keys, however it could also allow the option to expose only selected derivation paths. >> >> -monokh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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