From: "David A. Harding" <dave@dtrt•org>
To: Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-dev@wuille•net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Progress on bech32 for future Segwit Versions (BIP-173)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2020 08:04:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201206130453.tiu36iigva2jj5qn@ganymede> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5Zb8Vf0nq7_rg04OTJwVIY565lDZowEfBXX9IBVLIuG7lTa_sIe4BL3YbpBK2NUAZV7QasZTPHVo5J2uJoRgjj3TveBC12QEp9oTdnLis0k=@wuille.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1427 bytes --]
On Sat, Dec 05, 2020 at 11:10:51PM +0000, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think these results really show there is no reason to try to
> maintain the old-software-can-send-to-future-segwit-versions property,
> given that more than one not just didn't support it, but actually sent
> coins into a black hole.
I don't think this is a good criteria to use for making a decision. We
shouldn't deny users of working implementations the benefit of a feature
because some other developers didn't implement it correctly.
> Thus, I agree with Rusty that we should change the checksum for v1+
> unconditionally.
I disagreed with Rusty previously and he proposed we check to see how
disruptive an address format change would be by seeing how many wallets
already provide forward compatibility and how many would need to be
updated for taproot no matter what address format is used. I think that
instead is a good criteria for making a decision.
I understand the results of that survey to be that only two wallets
correctly handled v1+ BIP173 addresses. One of those wallets is Bitcoin
Core, which I personally believe will unhesitatingly update to a new
address format that's technically sound and which has widespread support
(doubly so if it's just a tweak to an already-implemented checksum
algorithm).
Given that, I also now agree with changing the checksum for v1+.
Thanks,
-Dave
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-06 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-08 0:21 Rusty Russell
2020-10-08 14:59 ` David A. Harding
2020-10-08 15:21 ` Russell O'Connor
2020-10-15 1:40 ` Rusty Russell
2020-10-16 21:09 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-10-19 0:49 ` Rusty Russell
2020-10-19 22:55 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-10-20 0:42 ` Rusty Russell
2020-10-20 3:31 ` Rusty Russell
2020-10-20 9:21 ` Riccardo Casatta
2020-10-20 10:29 ` David A. Harding
2020-10-20 20:12 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-10-20 23:52 ` Mike Schmidt
2020-10-21 4:51 ` Rusty Russell
2020-11-06 19:49 ` Mike Schmidt
2020-12-05 23:10 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-12-06 13:04 ` David A. Harding [this message]
2020-12-06 20:43 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-12-08 17:39 ` Ryan Grant
2020-12-18 2:02 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-10-21 3:05 ` ZmnSCPxj
2020-10-21 4:39 ` Rusty Russell
2020-10-28 0:20 ` Pieter Wuille
2020-12-05 22:59 ` Pieter Wuille
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201206130453.tiu36iigva2jj5qn@ganymede \
--to=dave@dtrt$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@wuille$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox