Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bech32 weakness and impact on bip-taproot addresses

[ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>]

Good morning Pieter, and all,

Can we modify Bech32 SegWit address format for version 1 and above as below?

      * The data-part values:
      ** 1 byte: the witness version
    + ** If the witness version is non-zero, 1 byte: the length of the witness program.
      ** A conversion of the 2-to-40-byte witness program (as defined by [https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki BIP141]) to base32:
      *** Start with the bits of the witness program, most significant bit per byte first.
      *** Re-arrange those bits into groups of 5, and pad with zeroes at the end if needed.
      *** Translate those bits to characters using the table above.

This retains the ability of a bech32 address to specify any valid witness length and allows future version 1 addresses with lengths other than 32, while closing this malleation.

Older software being given the modified v1 address format would mis-send it to the wrong witness program, however.

Alternately we could just keep using version 0 in the address format forever.
The requirement would be to ensure that SegWit vN (N >= 1) output witness programs would have a data-part value encoded as below:

    * The data-part values:
    ** 1 byte: legacy witness version, which must always be 0.
    ** 1 byte: actual witness version, which must be non-zero.
    ** 1 byte: padding length: 0 or 1.
    ** If padding length is 1, 1 byte: padding, which must be 0.
    ** 1 byte: witness program length.
    ** variable: witness program.

A writer for a v1 or later address would initially set an empty padding, then compute:

      1 // actual witness version
    + 1 // padding length
    + 1 // witness length
    + witness_length

If the above sum is 20 or 32, then the writer selects a non-zero padding and inserts the padding byte so that the above sum is now 21 or 33.

To a reader that understands only bech32 v0, such an encoding would look like a SegWit v0 invalid-program-length, and be rejected.
A reader which understands the above protocol would, instead of rejecting a SegWit v0 invalid-program-length, instead attempt to parse it as above first, and consider it as SegWit v1 or higher if it was parsed correctly as above.

The above proposal is of course ridiculous and I am now currently running diagnostics on my processing units to see if further glitches occur in test reasoning skills.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj