<p>The commitment is placed on an output's spk. In 732085, is the first output.</p>
<pre><code>6a24aa21a9ed69e5a4d80fbc380c2fef1fbb91f0184ffd74e4612f6c6d7ca9d08c7e995c583c
</code></pre>
<p>This satisfies the first rule. The second one, since this value has no consensus meaning yet, any 32-byte array can be placed there. They pushed a silly string, but it's 32-byte, so rule 2 isn't violated either.</p>
<p>Segwit commitment is only optional if there is no segwit tx in a block.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-06T13:18:58.197Z
Thank you. I just realized the my calculation of witness commitment was wrong. I assumed the reserved value to be 32 bytes of zeros.
Simon L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-06T19:00:11.813Z
The second block also has a witness commitment.
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-06T11:42:32.010Z
2023-02-06T11:42:32.010Z
Davidson Souza
<p>In BIP-0141, it states:</p>
<ol>
<li>a new block rule is added which requires a commitment to the wtxid.</li>
<li>the coinbase's input's witness must consist of a single 32-byte array for the witness reserved value.</li>
</ol>
<p>However, I spotted two recent blocks (732085 and 767471) that broke the mentioned rules and didn't include a scriptPubKey starting with 0x6a24aa21a9ed</p>
<p>And, their txinwitness field is 5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d, which decodes to the text '[P2Pool][P2Pool][P2Pool][P2Pool]'</p>
<p>Apparently, both the above rules stipulated in BIP-0141 were ignored.</p>
<p>So, unconforming to BIP-0141 (or other BIPs) by miners doesn't render the blocks invalid?</p>

<segregated-witness><coinbase-transaction><witness-commitment>
Is the "witness commitment" introduced in bip-0141 optional?
Simon L
# Is the "witness commitment" introduced in bip-0141 optional?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-02-06)

In BIP-0141, it states:

1. a new block rule is added which requires a commitment to the wtxid.
2. the coinbase's input's witness must consist of a single 32-byte array for the witness reserved value.

However, I spotted two recent blocks (732085 and 767471) that broke the mentioned rules and didn't include a scriptPubKey starting with 0x6a24aa21a9ed

And, their txinwitness field is 5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d5b5032506f6f6c5d, which decodes to the text '[P2Pool][P2Pool][P2Pool][P2Pool]'

Apparently, both the above rules stipulated in BIP-0141 were ignored.

So, unconforming to BIP-0141 (or other BIPs) by miners doesn't render the blocks invalid?

**Tags:** segregated-witness, coinbase-transaction, witness-commitment


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-02-06. Score: 2

The commitment is placed on an output's spk. In 732085, is the first output.

```
6a24aa21a9ed69e5a4d80fbc380c2fef1fbb91f0184ffd74e4612f6c6d7ca9d08c7e995c583c

```

This satisfies the first rule. The second one, since this value has no consensus meaning yet, any 32-byte array can be placed there. They pushed a silly string, but it's 32-byte, so rule 2 isn't violated either.

Segwit commitment is only optional if there is no segwit tx in a block.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you. I just realized the my calculation of witness commitment was wrong. I assumed the reserved value to be 32 bytes of zeros.  
> **username_2**: The second block also has a witness commitment.  

---

