From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Delivery-date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:23:13 -0700 Received: from mail-oa1-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by mail.fairlystable.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1x8wiW-00059O-CD for bitcoindev@gnusha.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:23:13 -0700 Received: by mail-oa1-f61.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-469debb526fsf4794525fac.0 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:23:12 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1790068986; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; b=RMesoaeYGBDJaG+8j98N/1gD3f3j0vCKfsQ6tPe+vT+kNQTP47UTcBOWGaKaDdUT/K 1yRiLPCi/zD0p0lFdUNhBthEGzmMIs5U5MK2RgFviNUzhpcR3xAURYZnveoevKJ1A9bT i/njMhNmr+AL1WmSHZ/dtTcXy7ubvhF6GHow7JR57lEiO9kQNRU8x8y11JWV3uqWH0yI FcwZFjz3HZBA/9I6K5c0CgBt5Moq/5nk6Ps09wHbwGvlhm4gg+bvR7PRiDqzHD+4296E FTViupuQyYt8VYdXUvxROU4hbJai9gprzgtFX8aPF5okBviM7jOeWrO641pSFGF2kJ+h YvJQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to:mime-version:feedback-id :message-id:subject:from:to:date:dkim-signature; bh=bnDk2AdKWOBrfKZAKY9snEABptyUwR9Y5J1Y9HSKB+U=; fh=Mo/KCqxSAnsrD8inLcRxzL/7QQ1F1qGUtlLha2j+ofI=; b=V8El+7C9mgZKhrg4m0OZlgmzO/gq7dwWYIV2TTYXUfZAqYURH7ez+FtspeEUvkhZgZ gYHPU1jHfg6wm+ngZx3zC8X2Cx1NZYlyNlxwH4OnQEFPY/QD3Ts6/KkimOoisoXKjRG0 rvlYyr5oqbx8ZHKjGmyPKg8pGBeFY8fWecVDI3lZuksKmn2MmBB+ZanAKsCGqkyCAZIP kTHtWh7rurIvjuI1JS9wI5PJIb+ronCO6YxyNCb9q+WThS3ch7A9tdWhSeVEsX3VFuE9 1dnBXERVBe8bQz044jQLMmHLpft90Q8Tg5+8JzzKKXS4XOHn9pYZiXoS5G+tmecELVFX j6Uw==; darn=gnusha.org ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=xw9hQ+w9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 109.224.244.116 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fjahr@protonmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=protonmail.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20251104; t=1790068986; x=1790673786; darn=gnusha.org; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:content-type :mime-version:feedback-id:message-id:subject:from:to:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=bnDk2AdKWOBrfKZAKY9snEABptyUwR9Y5J1Y9HSKB+U=; b=r8TzNyF1DSCbj4xoeqWYgoeBiVBSNiLVCNjYSTkhBoV/zq+YVh7/bnTsMKWj6z1gO8 Ha1+k8emrJs6X1MMjSjWZSBliFX2iXMuJO0+rV4kg0UTUKPMNHgeo49+nk0PDzBpGUIk XSu8H+NAc7ou/JVxSErRNo1I3i5b9SL5Bm0/ZDUydckntGs8RcNs1m7IfbLaZIKcKau2 H6bf272gmwsS8GenIPQK+Izs6hs+F5XLINsQm93yJtbUQsXilsq8bKSEMy6QfnYf4Jt7 hy+Z4zEhLpkR8S7XbPV8b9LObW+zyPzOvBXCxd02ubjAJJDf1867W0UAvXCXgmICekLA evMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1790068986; x=1790673786; h=list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-help:list-post :list-id:mailing-list:precedence:reply-to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:content-type :mime-version:feedback-id:message-id:subject:from:to:date :x-beenthere:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=bnDk2AdKWOBrfKZAKY9snEABptyUwR9Y5J1Y9HSKB+U=; b=hDiEQtYPFLcHutS4BeOkF3aZkq/6CZyDeGy9AriMtpcqoyzIHpxxbFtRt2+jIW6e0/ 1Ebm5ORob5lDvo7MTKRtAitjz2khjSc5pq8Ynl6YqIiVyhSGC+wGiPIN025/MsMG3tFz wR4Sm50lIFF09h2+HlQ1xxrevVt8+ODVey9LK34vqya3iK/jNlKRzm18b/JIpYGTnNvb THP8uxEuPZd9eeX4d/ei2befCYyodPgMeV3vujHLV/70rpa4WzZYRCf7MTjl6p5b55iT lqupMK+9Yj1iNWzOjSJUwYAx/+P73Ygd/HaSiRow2Kk88ulBHT2bA5O6MElIclizXL/V vfJg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=2; AKwUvBxw6ilZU9bCFfbvnzWZizbnKCvSlLj1/rB4CpDhTaeo71paLAjBlmDC64rXd2HuAtamr4qXk1r3T2rQ@gnusha.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFuF++miAbUmIQzooT9RGXwRsYFx6RA3GQ4cTDxLqgbSPKgXTUEcfc23 K36XrcgK+t2SwosAMjOUaR5QMXwWtO6dJbJN1A+qeRlDzOEuN80ei4Py X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:1691:b0:48f:e0f6:bd5a with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-48fe0f6ce13mr572338fac.43.1790068986026; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; h="ATskLdeYTTGWFyUwR8VJkv/77/H/rkJbMNOgrDNkU/O/S5FEKA==" Received: by 2002:a05:6871:cc5a:20b0:487:fd3d:4662 with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-487fd4cc6edls2318594fac.2.-pod-prod-07-us; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:30a0:b0:4c5:4eed:b447 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4ccf6a74ebcmr14432854b6e.1.1790068979635; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 2002:a05:6809:35c:20b0:4c4:b241:2216 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-4d026856a99msb6e; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:07:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1d0b:b0:39d:fcbe:fe04 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-3a07309fd39mr523264a91.2.1790068032542; Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:07:12 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1790068032; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; b=Xg2ztqqd0Fiiga1iPlsLjmZPd+y6ZC08eTCbp6x7fqP0vibyCIFiqYqoZZ3zy3O8++ t78Mn7mPkmvK1nNiPl5zHW6uIDlmOV0Sek2FzSpBo5zUKxWWgpnSLvlHz7V7nCByqtyp Uy9lVrEGIbHq0rVMmp+p86saCLo133RkGW9EXRTa/po4qB7rfSSipLiediL+6tumlJIy ScmVtwearsGCD2QGwC67sDINQa+qpUQ1g3yx//vteKUS8x0cJNERS4FZbazqEKeUej3J N7rAPleZTc4OjbuCdE7wEG3x6SKt9T/nKLVEuaxCoenpOHI8jOMpwN1SIviwVBAj9ebw bxXQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; h=mime-version:feedback-id:message-id:subject:from:to:date :dkim-signature; bh=v9brbvUqO7I2uCxQs5RFNwdlycfUjbuZZV+vSFoXHaA=; fh=DMP0F9ULS1guKiqimntQRCN8ZraraesEgQuVcn7F0Z0=; b=TSlCeYkPD4KCMcLxHVWISpdfEZSY4o5I92vOgoI/6hSS8rTvltLnoZTNXpOWdGnHSx KGYNUZ28CTI13gi+f3zjDVAX4+K8zCwIBbi1fKpl5aB1ERgMnzsZmdju1CHab2/gB6lq q4Y/yx3eZHGwyIKCuajlT+k4rWiE7WzjjSBcc5tJDSYreksJknwSJBtUpBKkZcThM588 9zi6HkfVDroUXYK3df4acuo9LsZ/DW0ZkvJreg5PtXs+THa9vOwfQYTRg0BWf60cOdTK zOv+AsB3a70S/WXsFDjY4xURp3+JiBxk5f33EdXDxbPBg+aUadU72oc1OjCnKG4m0r/b haDg==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=xw9hQ+w9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 109.224.244.116 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fjahr@protonmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=protonmail.com Received: from mail-244116.protonmail.ch (mail-244116.protonmail.ch. [109.224.244.116]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a92af1059eb24-144f294e19csi39012c88.1.2026.09.22.02.07.11 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 109.224.244.116 as permitted sender) client-ip=109.224.244.116; Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 09:07:05 +0000 To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List From: "'Fabian' via Bitcoin Development Mailing List" Subject: [bitcoindev] Convention for tagged hash tags in BIPs Message-ID: Feedback-ID: 5067558:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: 4a83e53624eef5d5f80bb71774b155ed7e2d5bcf MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="b1=_mMYd5fDt4AwuodDP6XiLavgYeBcf079eU29o8FWrg" X-Original-Sender: fjahr@protonmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@protonmail.com header.s=protonmail3 header.b=xw9hQ+w9; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fjahr@protonmail.com designates 109.224.244.116 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=fjahr@protonmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=protonmail.com X-Original-From: Fabian Reply-To: Fabian Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 786775582512 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --b1=_mMYd5fDt4AwuodDP6XiLavgYeBcf079eU29o8FWrg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, while reviewing BIP 459 (DahLIAS) theStack pointed out to me that most recent cryptography BIPs put the BIP number into their tagged hash tags but that some others use a descriptive name instad. The same question came up on the FROST signing BIP [1][2]. BIP 458 has used "HalfAgg/randomizer" since long before it had a number and I adopted the same style for BIP 459 ("FullAgg/...") when writing the draft but I have now changed it to the BIP number based on how the most recent cryptography BIPs have handled it. But I have also received some offline feedback that changing tags for this convention probably isn't good enough reason to break the spec. This question would come up for every new BIP that uses tagged hashes, because a spec usually needs its tags defined before it is perceived ready to receive a number. So I think it would be good to settle on a convention if possible or at least document some community opinions here, rather than to have a fresh debate in each new BIP. As far as I can tell there is no written rule and the existing BIPs are inconsistent. BIP 324, 340, 352, 374 and 445 include the number. BIP 341 does not ("TapLeaf" etc.) even though it was written by the same authors at the same time as BIP 340 and BIP 327 does not either. One explanation could be that authors who wrote the BIP before any implementation existed used the number, while specs that were implemented before or while the BIP was written kept their original tag. That would seem to fit as an explaination for most examples but it is a guess and doesn't seem to fit 340 vs 341. Arguments I could think of ...for including the number: - The number is guaranteed to be unique within the BIPs ecosystem. - It makes the origin of a hash obvious when reading code or test vectors. ...against including the number: - The spec is broken at the time the number is assigned, requiring extra work on all implementation sites that already exist. - Maybe tags don't need to be unique across BIPs and be interpreted as more general domain separation. I am curious to hear where people fall on this, and if there should be some form of documentation of the convention, where people think the right place for that would be. Fabian [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2210#discussion_r4010220690 [2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/2070#discussion_r3253350748 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/dxapm4DOcrDL6_oCYSqBAdFP0fAQA9IHInRzzTuCeWVYD2Xd0ynPsTa8hYEcRFOYQPnvoQK15TtK6oAZBfa-4b5DbIuFemSFGVifxGTLOlc%3D%40protonmail.com. --b1=_mMYd5fDt4AwuodDP6XiLavgYeBcf079eU29o8FWrg Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

while reviewing BIP 459 (D= ahLIAS) theStack pointed out to me
that most recent = cryptography BIPs put the BIP number into
their tagg= ed hash tags but that some others use a
descriptive = name instad. The same question came up on the
FROST = signing BIP [1][2]. BIP 458 has used
"HalfAgg/random= izer" since long before it had a number and I
adopte= d the same style for BIP 459 ("FullAgg/...") when
wr= iting the draft but I have now changed it to the BIP
number based on how the most recent cryptography BIPs have
handled it. But I have also received some offline feedback
that changing tags for this convention probably isn't good
enough reason to break the spec. This question would = come
up for every new BIP that uses tagged hashes, b= ecause a spec
usually needs its tags defined before = it is perceived ready
to receive a number. So I thin= k it would be good to settle
on a convention if poss= ible or at least document some
community opinions he= re, rather than to have a fresh debate
in each = new BIP.

As far as I can tell there i= s no written rule and the
existing BIPs are inconsis= tent. BIP 324, 340, 352, 374 and
445 include the num= ber. BIP 341 does not ("TapLeaf" etc.)
even though i= t was written by the same authors at the same
time a= s BIP 340 and BIP 327 does not either. One explanation
could be that authors who wrote the BIP before any
implementation existed used the number, while specs that
were implemented before or while the BIP was written kept
their original tag. That would seem to fit as an
<= div>explaination for most examples but it is a guess and doesn't
seem to fit 340 vs 341.

=
Arguments I could think of

...for including the number:
- The number is guaran= teed to be unique within the BIPs
  ecosystem.<= /span>
- It makes the origin of a hash obvious when reading= code or
  test vectors.

<= /div>
...against including the number:
- T= he spec is broken at the time the number is assigned,
  requiring extra work on all implementation sites that
=
  already exist.
- Maybe tags don't = need to be unique across BIPs and be
  interpre= ted as more general domain separation.

I am curious to hear where people fall on this, and if
<= span>there should be some form of documentation of the
convention, where people think the right place for that
would be.

Fabian
<= /div>
=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bitcoind= ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/= dxapm4DOcrDL6_oCYSqBAdFP0fAQA9IHInRzzTuCeWVYD2Xd0ynPsTa8hYEcRFOYQPnvoQK15Tt= K6oAZBfa-4b5DbIuFemSFGVifxGTLOlc%3D%40protonmail.com.
--b1=_mMYd5fDt4AwuodDP6XiLavgYeBcf079eU29o8FWrg--