Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FA2C013A for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD3D855BE for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a7jVoBDaZHmB for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-40136.protonmail.ch (mail-40136.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.136]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDAF9850E1 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:36 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wuille.net; s=protonmail2; t=1611102578; bh=dDZugWsZmP+cM0XMBzKpvU+K65wXKLnO1x6jLhiM2to=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SmrF5yIdZdKAq6yOvc4e0jSViv6Wd2cUCSZsai8/d1RoBBBXcy6whUEejn3fVxj75 i1qK/TR575EcPnx5V9eaV12md9Gfqf/ZE/37vH9N3f/tzfRPeVackHVTx9pPm8/dKy wMAJFP5wAjo8Ca91kqlq2vMMscIodu6JusgtQU6sUeUJDs8jMdnSUdIOxUfzUqqD+3 LZ5LXtJATC0bzLfTstv/n94/G+2rA5WzTe0O1LD1M2G2DCRtxDJ+Qrmr141W0tjc+P sFh1ZsbovNnBAPSTlbqASuOeSBBkVlXuCo+4ogGZp8ZC4YlQViibxvmJsV4AnFezGS R1FYdvXE9C8pw== To: nakagat From: Pieter Wuille Reply-To: Pieter Wuille Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bech32m BIP: new checksum, and usage for segwit address X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:42 -0000 On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:23 PM, nakagat wrote: > Dear. Pieter, > > My idea is exactly what you wrote. > > However, I don't think it is the same as "checksum =3D hash (hrp, data)". No, it is not the same. But it has the same error-detection properties as j= ust a hash. Hash-based checksums aren't bad, but: * The BCH based checksum that Bech32 uses is better at detecting certain su= bsets of errors than a hash can be. Once you add in a hash you irrevocably = lose these properties. * If we wanted a checksum with error detection properties that are equivale= nt to a hash, we should just use a hash like Base58Check did. However, that= 's not the goal of Bech32/Bech32m. If this isn't clear, I'm afraid I don't know how to continue discussing thi= s. We can take if off this list, if you want. Cheers, -- Pieter