Re: [bitcoin-dev] Lightning - Is HTLC vulnerable? And mention of Channel Factories

2020-07-15 Thread Jochen Hoenicke via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 16:42, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Good morning Mr. Lee, > > > Sorry. Re-sending with correction to CC bitcoin-dev > > > > I am sorry if this was already brought up in previous threads. If I know > > lightning network correctly

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

2020-07-15 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:31 AM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > That brings me to Matt's point: there is no need to do this right now. We > can simply amend BIP173 to only permit length 20 and length 32 (and only > length 20 for v0, if you like; bu

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

2020-07-15 Thread Greg Sanders via bitcoin-dev
Can you make it clear what the bold vs not-bold numbers mean? On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:56 PM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:31 AM Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >>

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

2020-07-15 Thread Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
The bold values are the witness program lengths and address lengths of the segwit v0 programs (BIP-141), which clearly need to be covered in my proposed amendment. 32 bytes is also the proposed witness program length for segwit v1 that would correspond to a taproot (BIP-341) program. On Wed, Jul