Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add discussion question for bech32 mutability #24

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

glozow
Copy link
Contributor

@glozow glozow commented Aug 13, 2020

We had a nice talk about bech32 and the extensive research to develop it at study group. I found it particularly interesting to discuss what kinds of errors we'd want to check for and detection vs correction. There was also mention about it still being "broken"/imperfect, i.e. this mutability issue despite how much work was done on it. I stumbled upon a summary about it in optech and thought it framed the issue nicely. I think it could be a stimulating discussion about design goals, updating requirements when new developments come along, etc.

@@ -33,3 +33,4 @@
1. How did users know whether miners support SegWit prior to activation?
1. How does a (virtual block increase) affect IBD cost over time?
1. Where are the locking script operations in P2WPKH/P2WSH?
1. What are some address format design goals and requirements discussed in the bech32 talk? How problematic is the [bech32 mutability](https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/2019/12/28/#bech32-mutability) issue for v0 segwit addresses versus for taproot?
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. This refers to an optional resource, so not sure how to indicate this question is only for those that watched the video.

  2. I think the optech link should go in the answers file otherwise it just becomes another thing to read beforehand.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could put [optional] on it? and move the optech link to answers.md, yeah

@adamjonas
Copy link
Member

Concept ACK

@adamjonas adamjonas closed this Sep 28, 2020
@adamjonas
Copy link
Member

Added the above-discussed fixes and added to #30.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants