Will a Schnorr soft-fork introduce a new address format (i.e. not bech32)
When we (hopefully) soft-fork to Schnorr signatures will the address be indistinguishable from bech32 addresses?
bech32-address schnorr-signatures
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
add a comment |
When we (hopefully) soft-fork to Schnorr signatures will the address be indistinguishable from bech32 addresses?
bech32-address schnorr-signatures
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
add a comment |
When we (hopefully) soft-fork to Schnorr signatures will the address be indistinguishable from bech32 addresses?
bech32-address schnorr-signatures
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
When we (hopefully) soft-fork to Schnorr signatures will the address be indistinguishable from bech32 addresses?
bech32-address schnorr-signatures
bech32-address schnorr-signatures
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
asked Dec 17 '18 at 0:15
Bertram LundBertram Lund
714
714
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
They will be distinguishable, but they will still be bech32 addresses.
The introduction of Schnorr signatures requires a new type of output. Segwit was designed with such extensibility in mind, and it defines 17 version numbers. Currently, only version 0 is used. Segwit v0 outputs with a 20-byte hash are known as P2WPKH outputs, and v0 outputs with a 32-byte hash are known as P2WSH outputs.
A new version number can be introduced, for example v1, and given semantics through a softfork. Schnorr signatures is one of the changes being considered for a proposal.
However, bech32 addresses literally encode a version number plus a payload, which maps directly to the various versions of segwit outputs.
The version number in Bitcoin bech32 addresses is in the 4th character. For all v0 outputs, that version character is 'q'. For v1 outputs it will be a 'p'.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "308"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82952%2fwill-a-schnorr-soft-fork-introduce-a-new-address-format-i-e-not-bech32%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
They will be distinguishable, but they will still be bech32 addresses.
The introduction of Schnorr signatures requires a new type of output. Segwit was designed with such extensibility in mind, and it defines 17 version numbers. Currently, only version 0 is used. Segwit v0 outputs with a 20-byte hash are known as P2WPKH outputs, and v0 outputs with a 32-byte hash are known as P2WSH outputs.
A new version number can be introduced, for example v1, and given semantics through a softfork. Schnorr signatures is one of the changes being considered for a proposal.
However, bech32 addresses literally encode a version number plus a payload, which maps directly to the various versions of segwit outputs.
The version number in Bitcoin bech32 addresses is in the 4th character. For all v0 outputs, that version character is 'q'. For v1 outputs it will be a 'p'.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
add a comment |
They will be distinguishable, but they will still be bech32 addresses.
The introduction of Schnorr signatures requires a new type of output. Segwit was designed with such extensibility in mind, and it defines 17 version numbers. Currently, only version 0 is used. Segwit v0 outputs with a 20-byte hash are known as P2WPKH outputs, and v0 outputs with a 32-byte hash are known as P2WSH outputs.
A new version number can be introduced, for example v1, and given semantics through a softfork. Schnorr signatures is one of the changes being considered for a proposal.
However, bech32 addresses literally encode a version number plus a payload, which maps directly to the various versions of segwit outputs.
The version number in Bitcoin bech32 addresses is in the 4th character. For all v0 outputs, that version character is 'q'. For v1 outputs it will be a 'p'.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
add a comment |
They will be distinguishable, but they will still be bech32 addresses.
The introduction of Schnorr signatures requires a new type of output. Segwit was designed with such extensibility in mind, and it defines 17 version numbers. Currently, only version 0 is used. Segwit v0 outputs with a 20-byte hash are known as P2WPKH outputs, and v0 outputs with a 32-byte hash are known as P2WSH outputs.
A new version number can be introduced, for example v1, and given semantics through a softfork. Schnorr signatures is one of the changes being considered for a proposal.
However, bech32 addresses literally encode a version number plus a payload, which maps directly to the various versions of segwit outputs.
The version number in Bitcoin bech32 addresses is in the 4th character. For all v0 outputs, that version character is 'q'. For v1 outputs it will be a 'p'.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
They will be distinguishable, but they will still be bech32 addresses.
The introduction of Schnorr signatures requires a new type of output. Segwit was designed with such extensibility in mind, and it defines 17 version numbers. Currently, only version 0 is used. Segwit v0 outputs with a 20-byte hash are known as P2WPKH outputs, and v0 outputs with a 32-byte hash are known as P2WSH outputs.
A new version number can be introduced, for example v1, and given semantics through a softfork. Schnorr signatures is one of the changes being considered for a proposal.
However, bech32 addresses literally encode a version number plus a payload, which maps directly to the various versions of segwit outputs.
The version number in Bitcoin bech32 addresses is in the 4th character. For all v0 outputs, that version character is 'q'. For v1 outputs it will be a 'p'.
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
answered Dec 17 '18 at 0:39
Pieter WuillePieter Wuille
47.3k399158
47.3k399158
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
add a comment |
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
Will existing wallets be able to send to version X scripts if they already support bech32 without any implementation changes?
– nopara73
Mar 1 at 23:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Bitcoin Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbitcoin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f82952%2fwill-a-schnorr-soft-fork-introduce-a-new-address-format-i-e-not-bech32%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
