This is a
bitcoin forum, so it is guaranteed that (at least) every
legendary member has a bitcoin wallet and is capable of signing a message with his private key. Security of that digital signature (ECDSA) is no less than security of PGP signatures (RSA or DSA). But the problem is most members don't have any use for PGP so you would be forcing them to use something they don't need.
P.S. BIP322 exists for signing standard.
1. There's no standard to sign messages using segwit. Bitcointalk software would need to implement different ways of verifying messages for different wallet software
It really isn't that hard to implement even if different wallets used different standards, the difference would be in the first byte and the rest is the same. Every signature has a "signature" that is
r and
s which you use to recover the possible public keys (most cases only 1 possible but can be up to 4) hash them and compare it to the given address. The first byte is just telling you which address is supposed to be correct, which you can ignore and loop through all possibilities.
Also regarding SHA-1 here is my thoughts:
I’ve long thought there should be a spot for PGP fingerprint.
PGP fingerprints are SHA-1, which is insecure. The OpenPGP standard really needs a complete new revision...
Is it really insecure in
this context?
To my knowledge the only problem with SHA-1 so far is collision. Considering SHA-1 is 160-bit and there is a known structural weakness, it has a time complexity of 2
63 which is very fast. But in this context the security depends on ability to find a
second preimage (since the message aka the pubkey and the hash of it is already known), and there has been no weaknesses found to help perform this any faster so this has a time complexity of 2
160 which makes it expensive enough to be secure.