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
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
|
Return-Path: <dave@dtrt.org>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3426FC013B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:05:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17E652094B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:05:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id ORga8cgSoOpg
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:05:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from newmail.dtrt.org (li1228-87.members.linode.com [45.79.129.87])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C352045D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Dec 2020 13:05:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from harding by newmail.dtrt.org with local (Exim 4.92)
(envelope-from <dave@dtrt.org>)
id 1kltjH-0007xu-LE; Sun, 06 Dec 2020 08:05:31 -0500
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 08:04:53 -0500
From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20201206130453.tiu36iigva2jj5qn@ganymede>
References: <87imblmutl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<sYf9B0e3UaSdMfdBfChon1Vr7BRFdH_6mgzuXIt_xbtlKtdqns9JJp90dRlNfvwBoRq57YEVrKbKX-dHDWz7TE0gobU4u8dGGJTcFFz2n60=@wuille.net>
<877drn2g6q.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<S6FCoLsmwaQUhrtSURemcTcG8tUWTXYkBf-0Q0hxCpObfJQ0TXNcmJrQhoqy7ttWwtGnvyS-bJ5RSXJoPizAgjuMognzVnu3SM3wMujKy88=@wuille.net>
<878sc120f5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<20201020102952.4iwpugi5dxawufgo@ganymede>
<Kw_jwhASjriebJpsuUyi0u9EQmIVR1pQ3Jocqd9VeVDlmoH9s36bFAwr3PXu_pJd-Xly-hKun_yenLwbJvVIYWmlAiF5lMxuquLO2pTmlLo=@wuille.net>
<CAMeZzJeG00q9DPQacidto5H16Ryb6ou6tnMDK1jnAuncnVXnsA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMeZzJdQuS1-0qPvY+0-yqRfVXgZV_2hmHB5hZwykm5WxjUkgg@mail.gmail.com>
<5Zb8Vf0nq7_rg04OTJwVIY565lDZowEfBXX9IBVLIuG7lTa_sIe4BL3YbpBK2NUAZV7QasZTPHVo5J2uJoRgjj3TveBC12QEp9oTdnLis0k=@wuille.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="it34k6sdqawybbt7"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5Zb8Vf0nq7_rg04OTJwVIY565lDZowEfBXX9IBVLIuG7lTa_sIe4BL3YbpBK2NUAZV7QasZTPHVo5J2uJoRgjj3TveBC12QEp9oTdnLis0k=@wuille.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Progress on bech32 for future Segwit Versions
(BIP-173)
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 13:05:35 -0000
--it34k6sdqawybbt7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 11:10:51PM +0000, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wro=
te:
> I think these results really show there is no reason to try to
> maintain the old-software-can-send-to-future-segwit-versions property,
> given that more than one not just didn't support it, but actually sent
> coins into a black hole.
I don't think this is a good criteria to use for making a decision. We
shouldn't deny users of working implementations the benefit of a feature
because some other developers didn't implement it correctly.
> Thus, I agree with Rusty that we should change the checksum for v1+
> unconditionally.=20
I disagreed with Rusty previously and he proposed we check to see how
disruptive an address format change would be by seeing how many wallets
already provide forward compatibility and how many would need to be
updated for taproot no matter what address format is used. I think that
instead is a good criteria for making a decision.
I understand the results of that survey to be that only two wallets
correctly handled v1+ BIP173 addresses. One of those wallets is Bitcoin
Core, which I personally believe will unhesitatingly update to a new
address format that's technically sound and which has widespread support
(doubly so if it's just a tweak to an already-implemented checksum
algorithm).
Given that, I also now agree with changing the checksum for v1+.
Thanks,
-Dave
--it34k6sdqawybbt7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=8ZHo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--it34k6sdqawybbt7--
|
