Feature/bip322 integration by aagbotemi · Pull Request #179 · bitcoindevkit/bdk-cli

aagbotemi · 2025-04-26T12:29:46Z

Description

This PR added BIP322 feature into BDK CLI.
It also has a usage file for testing purposes

Notes to the reviewers

Changelog notice

Checklists

All Submissions:

I've signed all my commits
I followed the contribution guidelines
I ran cargo fmt and cargo clippy before committing

New Features:

I've added docs for the new feature
I've updated CHANGELOG.md

notmandatory · 2025-04-28T23:43:52Z

I'd rather not have a separate key file for this feature and try to protect it with a password and all that. This bdk-cli tool is primarily meant as a manual testing tool and example of how to use the bdk_wallet APIs so providing the public or private key descriptor via command line or environment var should also work for this signing feature.

More importantly the use of bip322 as I understand it is to be able to sign a message using what ever bitcoin descriptor script your bitcoin wallet has. If you have a private key descriptor you should be able to sign the invalid input message transaction, and if not you should still be able to create a PSBT that your hardware signers can sign. Does that make sense? Also have you seen the bdk-reserves crate? it does something similar.

aagbotemi · 2025-05-18T21:08:21Z

I'd rather not have a separate key file for this feature and try to protect it with a password and all that.

Still actively working on this. Will push updates once I'm done (likely within this week).

tvpeter · 2025-06-12T22:01:33Z

Hi @aagbotemi, can you rebase and fix the CI failures?

tvpeter

This PR is similar to the reserves feature that was taken out in the v1.0 update.
@aagbotemi, please consider changing bip322 feature flag to reserves.

Also, after rebasing, check whether there is need to update the workflows. I would prefer the workflows to go in a separate PR if necessary.

@notmandatory I don't know whether it is ideal that the crate he is referencing should be published for security reasons.

aagbotemi · 2025-06-13T13:59:54Z

@aagbotemi, please consider changing bip322 feature flag to reserves.

Alright @tvpeter, will do that.

@notmandatory I don't know whether it is ideal that the crate he is referencing should be published for security reasons.

Yes, I'm revamping the crate to use descriptor instead of private key, but I will continue the PR with the reserves crate.

aagbotemi · 2025-06-25T06:39:36Z

Thanks for the review and suggestion to rename the bip322 feature to reserves @tvpeter. I’m blocked on integrating bdk-reserves into this PR due to a version mismatch: bdk-cli uses bdk_wallet 2.0.0, but bdk-reserves uses another bdk_wallet version as the ProofOfReserves trait in bdk-reserves is implemented for it.

A PR (bitcoindevkit/bdk-reserves#39) updates bdk-reserves to support bdk_wallet 1.2.0. Once merged, we can bump bdk-reserves to use bdk_wallet 2.0.0.

aagbotemi · 2026-01-20T13:56:46Z

The update is a follow-up to the BIP322 refactor that migrated signing from raw keys to descriptor-based

coveralls · 2026-01-20T14:54:13Z

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21173945658

Details

0 of 40 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
Overall coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 10.549%

Changes Missing Coverage	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/error.rs	3	0.0%
src/utils.rs	11	0.0%
src/handlers.rs	26	0.0%

Totals
Change from base Build 21153868360:	-0.2%
Covered Lines:	269
Relevant Lines:	2550

💛 - Coveralls

tvpeter

Thank you for working on this @aagbotemi

I have left some comments.

tvpeter · 2026-02-17T19:55:53Z

src/commands.rs

    },
+    /// Sign a message using BIP322
+    #[cfg(feature = "bip322")]
+    SignBip322 {


I think SignMessage will be more descriptive

tvpeter · 2026-02-17T19:56:37Z

src/commands.rs

+    },
+    /// Verify a BIP322 signature
+    #[cfg(feature = "bip322")]
+    VerifyBip322 {


VerifyMessage should be better here too

tvpeter · 2026-02-17T22:22:48Z

src/handlers.rs

+            let address: Address = parse_address(&address)?;
+            let signature_format = parse_signature_format(&signature_type)?;
+
+            let proof: Bip322Proof = wallet


I think before attempting to sign, you should check if the provided address belongs to the wallet.

tvpeter · 2026-02-17T22:30:21Z

src/error.rs

+#[cfg(feature = "bip322")]
+impl From<bdk_bip322::error::Error> for BDKCliError {
+    fn from(e: bdk_bip322::error::Error) -> Self {
+        BDKCliError::Generic(e.to_string())


I think it's better add an error variant for BIP322 so we don't lose the error type from the library rather than wrapping everything inside the Generic variant.

aagbotemi · 2026-02-17T23:06:39Z

Thank you for working on this @aagbotemi
I have left some comments.

Thank you for the review. I'll attend to the comments shortly.

aagbotemi marked this pull request as draft April 26, 2025 13:08

aagbotemi marked this pull request as ready for review April 26, 2025 19:42

notmandatory assigned aagbotemi Apr 28, 2025

notmandatory added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 28, 2025

notmandatory added this to BDK-CLI May 28, 2025

notmandatory moved this to In Progress in BDK-CLI May 28, 2025

tvpeter requested changes Jun 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

aagbotemi force-pushed the feature/bip322-integration branch from 9afe400 to 7b94ecc Compare January 20, 2026 13:47

bip322: update proof handling for new bdk-bip322 API

007f71b

aagbotemi force-pushed the feature/bip322-integration branch from 7b94ecc to 007f71b Compare January 20, 2026 13:51

aagbotemi requested a review from tvpeter January 20, 2026 13:52

tvpeter requested changes Feb 17, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

aagbotemi commented Apr 26, 2025 • edited by notmandatory Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Notes to the reviewers

Changelog notice

Checklists

All Submissions:

New Features:

Uh oh!

notmandatory commented Apr 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aagbotemi commented May 18, 2025

Uh oh!

tvpeter commented Jun 12, 2025

Uh oh!

tvpeter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aagbotemi commented Jun 13, 2025

Uh oh!

aagbotemi commented Jun 25, 2025

Uh oh!

aagbotemi commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

coveralls commented Jan 20, 2026

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 21173945658

Details

💛 - Coveralls

Uh oh!

tvpeter left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tvpeter Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tvpeter Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tvpeter Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

tvpeter Feb 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

aagbotemi commented Feb 17, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

Comments

aagbotemi commented Apr 26, 2025 •

edited by notmandatory

Loading

notmandatory commented Apr 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading