1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <darosior@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C82C0032
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1F58207E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:37 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 1C1F58207E
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=jXazaBXZ
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ETFFUT_RxlXo
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-41104.protonmail.ch (mail-41104.protonmail.ch
[185.70.41.104])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DEA182062
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:36 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 2DEA182062
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:15 +0000
Authentication-Results: mail-41104.protonmail.ch;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com
header.b="jXazaBXZ"
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail3; t=1691740164; x=1691999364;
bh=uyOadG7YVVQnXaukqJ2ZpXYY49kFowymhhgAHrFh3u4=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:
Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:
Message-ID:BIMI-Selector;
b=jXazaBXZwNjNGX6J6YK5T1tZJTlrThHNmKQxpTw5lDW/NQfJJR+KHH8574omnutGo
ggyQO0KtDZEpMgVA6dOuDNK+oWRvI+8+H7K20aM4wPUPOys+HQYgnh91hhoVhbZ/eA
jA6NUoOar2YrBCLeHIwYUOEb6DQ822EubiJJVX2FAhfP9oEPRmrgBQIlYW6lazXruU
ZH5HIJeCradMSGFS6NzVWoTBWy7wHF0SXdC10mLW0h0kWPCVHZEDO3hB7xlsBAfJU9
n3ZBSMY4YO4KcE6DXPAamuCYVbtEQq3UzEpUxv6/n1+UHFZPMEfsA7hV8/fO2Ja0NP
6u6hKmHfycWgg==
To: Tobin Harding <me@tobin.cc>
From: Antoine Poinsot <darosior@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <J49TMTkrBU477h94mrYt_UkLIif_shPrWkS4VPUVTT-g_b2PtPRy7Aa0qEFOibwDEj6X069lWVr8oTMX6QJSNuOSQopLK3ywBfFiQiHMMZk=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZNW9BenWIhgX95zl@alke>
References: <ZNW9BenWIhgX95zl@alke>
Feedback-ID: 7060259:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:58:52 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] segwit naming ambiguity
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:37 -0000
Hey Tobin,
I would assume `is_segwit()` is true for P2TR, since Taproot is Segwit.
I'm not aware of a different term for "is P2WPKH or P2WSH" that "is Segwit =
v0". Maybe look into Murch's BIP about wording? He could have a better name=
for Segwit v0 there.
Cheers,
Antoine
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, August 11th, 2023 at 6:45 AM, Tobin Harding via bitcoin-dev <bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Question for OG bitcoin API designers please.
>=20
> If you were to see the following function
>=20
> `is_segwit()`
>=20
> would you assume it returns `true` or `false` for a p2tr transaction?
>=20
>=20
> Currently we (rust-bitcoin) are being liberal with the use of `v0` but
> its a pretty ugly. Is there an official, or widely used, name for segwit =
v0?
>=20
>=20
> Thanks,
> Tobin.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
