Perhaps title 'Bech32m address format for native v0-16 segregated witness outputs' should probably be v1-16?
This is a thorough and clear write up; a superb read. Side note: I am deeply impressed with your mathematical jujitsu that no bech32 string is also a valid bech32m string *even with three errors*. This sways me even more that this approach is correct. Untested-Ack. Thanks, Rusty. Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes: > On Monday, January 4, 2021 4:14 PM, Pieter Wuille <bitcoin-...@wuille.net> > wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> here is a BIP draft for changing the checksum in native segwit addresses for >> v1 and higher, following the discussion in >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-December/018293.html >> >> Overall, the idea is: >> * Define a new encoding which is a tweaked variant of Bech32, called >> Bech32m. It refers to the Bech32 section of BIP173, which remains in effect. >> * Define a new segwit address encoding which replaces the corresponding >> section in BIP173. It prescribes using Bech32 for v0 witness addresses, and >> Bech32m for other versions. > > Of course I forgot the actual link: > https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-bech32m/bip-bech32m.mediawiki > > Cheers, > > -- > Pieter > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
