Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bech32m BIP: new checksum, and usage for segwit address

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

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-dev@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