Hi, recently I have worked on a python implementation of bitcoin signature messages, and I have found that there was way better documentation about Segwit signature message than Taproot.
1) Segwit signature message got its own BIP, completed with test cases regarding only that specific function; Taproot on the other hand has the signature message function defined in BIP 341 and the test vectors in a different BIP (341). This is confusing. Shouldn't we create a different BIP only for Taproot signature message exactly like Segwit? 2) The test vectors for Taproot have no documentation and, most importantly, they are not atomic, in the sense that they do not target a specific part of the taproot code but all of it. This may not be a very big problem, but for signature verification it is. Because there are hashes involved, we can't really debug why a signature message doesn't pass validation, either it is valid or it is not. BIP 143 in this case is really good, because it provides hash preimages, so it is possible to debug the function and see where something went wrong. Because of this, writing the Segwit signature hash function took a fraction of the time compared to Taproot. If this idea is accepted I will be more than happy to write the test cases for Taproot. BTW this is the first time I contribute to Bitcoin, let me know if I was rude or did something wrong. Moreover english is not my first language, so I apologize if I wrote something awful above
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
