0

The following address uses witness version 0 and its checksum is the one expected for bech32m addresses. However, the combination of the two is not valid.

bc1qzeya3gp8xgegkev3pgpp2r2raj65lxsansy5erdghf8mm9xze8esuwg5yh

The address was used as part of a lightning network force-close transaction and contained funds from a timed-out HTLC. My lnd node was able to spend those funds.

Is this address valid or invalid?

https://mempool.space/address/bc1qzeya3gp8xgegkev3pgpp2r2raj65lxsansy5erdghf8mm9xze8esuwg5yh

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

The following address uses witness version 0

Correct.

and its checksum is the one expected for bech32m addresses.

No, it uses the bech32 checksum. What makes you conclude that it is bech32m?

However, the combination of the two is not valid.

Indeed. According to BIP350, witness v0 addresses must use the bech32 checksum, but witness v1 and up must use the bech32m checksum.

Is this address valid or invalid?

Valid.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I'm sorry, I messed up. I used a shorted version of the address (bc1qzeya3gp8xgegkev3pgpp2r2raj65lxsansy5erdg) for reasons I still don't understand, and I misinterpreted an output in my debugger (in fact, the checksum is wrong both for bech32 and bech32m).
    – C-Otto
    Aug 5, 2022 at 16:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.