From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C82C0032 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1F58207E for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 1C1F58207E Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=jXazaBXZ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ETFFUT_RxlXo for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-41104.protonmail.ch (mail-41104.protonmail.ch [185.70.41.104]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DEA182062 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 2DEA182062 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:15 +0000 Authentication-Results: mail-41104.protonmail.ch; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.b="jXazaBXZ" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1691740164; x=1691999364; bh=uyOadG7YVVQnXaukqJ2ZpXYY49kFowymhhgAHrFh3u4=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=jXazaBXZwNjNGX6J6YK5T1tZJTlrThHNmKQxpTw5lDW/NQfJJR+KHH8574omnutGo ggyQO0KtDZEpMgVA6dOuDNK+oWRvI+8+H7K20aM4wPUPOys+HQYgnh91hhoVhbZ/eA jA6NUoOar2YrBCLeHIwYUOEb6DQ822EubiJJVX2FAhfP9oEPRmrgBQIlYW6lazXruU ZH5HIJeCradMSGFS6NzVWoTBWy7wHF0SXdC10mLW0h0kWPCVHZEDO3hB7xlsBAfJU9 n3ZBSMY4YO4KcE6DXPAamuCYVbtEQq3UzEpUxv6/n1+UHFZPMEfsA7hV8/fO2Ja0NP 6u6hKmHfycWgg== To: Tobin Harding From: Antoine Poinsot Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 7060259:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:58:52 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] segwit naming ambiguity X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:49:37 -0000 Hey Tobin, I would assume `is_segwit()` is true for P2TR, since Taproot is Segwit. I'm not aware of a different term for "is P2WPKH or P2WSH" that "is Segwit = v0". Maybe look into Murch's BIP about wording? He could have a better name= for Segwit v0 there. Cheers, Antoine ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, August 11th, 2023 at 6:45 AM, Tobin Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Question for OG bitcoin API designers please. >=20 > If you were to see the following function >=20 > `is_segwit()` >=20 > would you assume it returns `true` or `false` for a p2tr transaction? >=20 >=20 > Currently we (rust-bitcoin) are being liberal with the use of `v0` but > its a pretty ugly. Is there an official, or widely used, name for segwit = v0? >=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Tobin. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev