On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:33:13PM -1000, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I thought the best practice[1] was that wallets would spend to the output
> indicated by any valid bech32m address.
I think it depends -- if the wallet in question is non-custodial and
might not be upgraded by
David,
I'm merely speaking in a descriptive sense. I predict that most custodians
are reluctant to whitelist
a witness version they know is insecure.
I'm not sure what's best for not colliding with future versions, I'll let
other wiser folks weigh in.
Cheers,
Greg
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 6:33
On 2023-01-31 04:30, Greg Sanders wrote:
Hi David,
From practical experience, I think you'll find that most exchanges
will not enable sends to future segwit versions,
as from a risk perspective it's likely a mistake to send funds there.
Hi Greg!,
I thought the best practice[1] was that
Hi David,
>From practical experience, I think you'll find that most exchanges will not
enable sends to future segwit versions,
as from a risk perspective it's likely a mistake to send funds there. That
said, as long as we don't change
the checksum again(!), updating to new versions should be
Hi y'all!,
One of the benefits proposed for bech32 (and, by extension, bech32m) is
that spender wallets shouldn't need to be upgraded to pay segwit outputs
defined in future soft forks. For example, Bitcoin Core today can pay a
bech32m address for a segwit v2 output, even though no meaning has
