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 wallets would spend to the
output indicated by any valid bech32m address. You seem to implying
that the best practice is the opposite: that wallets should only send to
outputs they know can be secured (i.e., which are not currently
anyone-can-spend). The more restrictive approach seems kind of sad to
me since any problem which can result in a user accidentally withdrawing
to a future segwit version could even more easily result in them
withdrawing to a witness program for which there is no solution (i.e.,
no key or script is known to spend).
If it is a best practice, then I think there's a benefit to being able
to test it even when other people's proprietary software is involved. A
wallet or service likely to follow that best practice may be more likely
to follow other best practices which cannot be as easily tested for.
But, if it's going to be tested, I want the testing to use the address
least likely to cause problems for protocol developers in the future.
Do you (and others on this list) have any reason to believe OP_16
OP_PUSH2 0000 would be a problematic script, or can you think of a
better script?
Thanks!,
-Dave
[1] BIP350, emphasis in original: "[...] we emphatically recommend [...]
ensuring that your implementation supports sending to v1 **and higher
versions.**"
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
