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
|
Return-Path: <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FA2C013A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <nakagat@gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Reply-To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille.net>
Message-ID: <WbHmWTdrVtO8kbI3xfn9S7-g8zruzRt_hngpxvJQWC0ibNSNMWXo3I1gjt9vzhF53pRbh-14VjPcA1JKckgaogi-fu3F48Yfwqmm2rX8K8g=@wuille.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk9a9crrQJFUZ5EcBUfz5QCdxHzgTiN1b9_ocfMgf4Qhx98Pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <jfRUzc8uB5fpIQy-a_TfTwjAD4FMtf2eInfHdgZRoLwc0NdTv7srnRLtmwFHPLInJfglSzOXXe0SVR3cgHejGPi0Kwl81UV_wkwVJcQi1rA=@wuille.net>
<CAHk9a9d_xm2nO1t5GsLJiny1V3H=uv8jGuUTywQetZQOXxyG9w@mail.gmail.com>
<N9ny4XfpI4SATvCXSKO_ns03ONm4p17tAGXxInoXIe16S7zfH6b8Uj2SkS-pL5sEEp7Wpyi0RZ8J92WZPDeHYKBBuq1xnV6eEUbKouej-TU=@wuille.net>
<CAHk9a9egxmTQqSLs9PUuH1L8q_c7hp_oo4jT1+BP0ga=aFCPhQ@mail.gmail.com>
<ER4Y1yqunl3NMmLFDYpDeXsw-MhtS3KBmSTnDQib7yVXas_HGoD7GgOPcQ6v0lSr9BG2ntXoYW4kEKiZ0VdDgecwxJOLMAvuIpUzbCpM6WI=@wuille.net>
<CAHk9a9crrQJFUZ5EcBUfz5QCdxHzgTiN1b9_ocfMgf4Qhx98Pw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 00:29:42 -0000
On Tuesday, January 19, 2021 4:23 PM, nakagat <nakagat@gmail.com> 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
|
