Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:15 +0000
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
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] segwit naming ambiguity
Precedence: list

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