Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 12:15:53 +0900
Message-Id: <FB218E84-0F03-4BDB-BB48-1EF45B44FDB9@voskuil.org>
References: <20191108021541.n3jk54vucplryrbl@ganymede>
In-Reply-To: <20191108021541.n3jk54vucplryrbl@ganymede>
To: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt.org>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bech32 weakness and impact on bip-taproot
	addresses
Precedence: list


> On Nov 8, 2019, at 11:16, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 02:35:42PM -0800, Pieter Wuille via bitco=
in-dev wrote:
>> In the current draft, witness v1 outputs of length other
>> than 32 remain unencumbered, which means that for now such an
>> insertion or erasure would result in an output that can be spent by
>> anyone. If that is considered unacceptable, it could be prevented by
>> for example outlawing v1 witness outputs of length 31 and 33.
>=20
> Either a consensus rule or a standardness rule[1] would require anyone
> using a bech32 library supporting v1+ segwit to upgrade their library.
> Otherwise, users of old libraries will still attempt to pay v1 witness
> outputs of length 31 or 33, causing their transactions to get rejected
> by newer nodes or get stuck on older nodes.  This is basically the
> problem #15846[2] was meant to prevent.
>=20
> If we're going to need everyone to upgrade their bech32 libraries
> anyway, I think it's probably best that the problem is fixed in the
> bech32 algorithm rather than at the consensus/standardness layer.

As an implementer of both the address encoding and script validation, I agre=
e.

e

> -Dave
>=20
> [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-November/=
017444.html
> [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15846
>=20
> P.S. My thanks as well to the people who asked the question during
>     review that lead to this discussion:
>=20
>     http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/taproot-bip-review/2019/taproot-bip-=
review.2019-11-05-19.00.log.html#l-88
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev