highperfocused/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-04-23 06:54:32 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Updated Comments:BIP 0341 (markdown)

Greg Tonoski 2024-10-23 23:17:53 +02:00
parent 4eb501fe5f
commit 9e542af513
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
Comments:BIP-0341.md

@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> Is this safe to do [using original key-pair - the one without TapTweaking]? In simple cases, yes. BIP341 recommends always tweaking, even when there are no scripts involved, because of interaction with certain other protocols that could be built on top. But if all you're going for is single-key signing, you could in theory get away with using keys untweaked. - https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/109716/can-you-use-un-tweaked-public-key-with-p2tr
There is the should-type requirement of hardcoded constant "TapTweak" in derivation of a private-public key pair used in a spending path that excludes scripts in the BIP-0341 specification. I think that the requirement is unnecessary or too restrictive. I would suggest replacing the requirement with a cautionary description and leaving an option to tweak a key to an owner's discretion instead. Reasons:
There is the should-type requirement of hardcoded constant "TapTweak" in derivation of a private-public key pair used in a spending path that excludes scripts in the BIP-0341 specification. I think that the requirement is unnecessary or too restrictive. I would suggest replacing the requirement with a cautionary note and leaving an option to derive ("TapTweak") a new key to an owner's discretion instead. Reasons:
1. avoidance/minimisation of a number of hardcoded values (in accordance with commonly accepted best practices);
2. keeping requirements specification consice and of high relevance to changes in protocol and consensus rules.