Giacomo Caironi [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-09-16 📝 Original message:Hi, recently I have worked ...

📅 Original date posted:2021-09-16
📝 Original message: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210916/2ec10acd/attachment.html>;