MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <jfRUzc8uB5fpIQy-a_TfTwjAD4FMtf2eInfHdgZRoLwc0NdTv7srnRLtmwFHPLInJfglSzOXXe0SVR3cgHejGPi0Kwl81UV_wkwVJcQi1rA=@wuille.net>
 <CAHk9a9d_xm2nO1t5GsLJiny1V3H=uv8jGuUTywQetZQOXxyG9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <N9ny4XfpI4SATvCXSKO_ns03ONm4p17tAGXxInoXIe16S7zfH6b8Uj2SkS-pL5sEEp7Wpyi0RZ8J92WZPDeHYKBBuq1xnV6eEUbKouej-TU=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <N9ny4XfpI4SATvCXSKO_ns03ONm4p17tAGXxInoXIe16S7zfH6b8Uj2SkS-pL5sEEp7Wpyi0RZ8J92WZPDeHYKBBuq1xnV6eEUbKouej-TU=@wuille.net>
From: nakagat <nakagat@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:59:05 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHk9a9egxmTQqSLs9PUuH1L8q_c7hp_oo4jT1+BP0ga=aFCPhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bech32m BIP: new checksum,
	and usage for segwit address
Precedence: list

Dear. Peter,

I'm not good at English, so I'm sorry for the poor explanation.

I thought that BECH32M_CONST could be created from hrp and data
instead of constants.

I thought that the error position would be the same as bech32 by
recalculating the value created from hrp and data.

If this were possible, I thought I could commit hrp and data to the checksu=
m.

Thank you.
Takatoshi Nakagawa

2021=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8818=E6=97=A5(=E6=9C=88) 13:15 Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-=
dev@wuille.net>:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A few updates, in response to comments here and in a few other places:
>
> - Updated several reference implementations (C, C++, Python, Javascript) =
to support Bech32m: https://github.com/sipa/bech32/tree/bech32m (but contri=
butions to update other languages are welcome!)
>
> - Updated website, including error-locating JS decoder, and demo: http://=
bitcoin.sipa.be/bech32/demo/demo.html
>
> - Opened a Bitcoin Core PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20861
>
> - Updates to the BIP draft (https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-bech32m=
/bip-bech32m.mediawiki):
>   * Made the title clearer (so it doesn't imply Bech32m is used for v0)
>   * Added rationale for not permitting both Bech32 and Bech32m for v0
>   * Added a section on error location
>   * Added links for more reference implementations
>
> On Friday, January 15, 2021 12:01 AM, nakagat <nakagat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I read the BIP draft of Bech32m and implemented it in Go.
>
> Cool! Do feel like contributing it to https://github.com/sipa/bech32/tree=
/bech32m?
>
> > Let me ask you one question.
> > Does Checksum have to be fixed?
> > The 'bech32_verify_checksum' function has hrp and data as parameters,
> > so how about committing Checksum with these two values?
> >
> > For example, calculate Checksum from hrp and data using hash, chacha20,=
 etc.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Do you mean:
>
> 1) Can we use a hash function to compute the checksum instead of Bech32's=
 algorithm?
>
> If you compute the checksum using the HRP and the data using a hash funct=
ion, you just 2^-30 failure probability for any error. The idea behind Bech=
32 was doing better than that for common errors: any error that consists of=
 up to 4 substitutions are a failure probability of 0 - far better than a h=
ash can do.
>
> 2) Can we keep using Bech32's algorithm, but compute the final xorred-in =
constant from the HRP and the data using a hash function?
>
> That would be functionally equivalent to (1).
>
> 3) Can we keep using Bech32's algorithm, but compute the final xorred-in =
constant from the HRP (but not the data) using a hash function?
>
> It would mean that some (very) small set of potential HRPs would exhibit =
much worse behavior than others - including the 'q'-before-'p' that the ori=
ginal Bech32 has.
>
> Does that clarify things?
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Pieter
>