Human meaningful witness versioning

The communication highlights a critical issue with the visibility of specific fields in Bitcoin addresses, which inadvertently leads users to believe they must oversee the legitimacy of these addresses. This misconception stems from an incorrect assumption that different types of transactions correspond to distinct witness versions, reminiscent of the mistaken belief that addresses starting with "3" are exclusively for multisig purposes. Such misunderstandings not only create unnecessary competition for a finite resource but also perpetuate a narrow view of address utility, assuming they're designed for single, inflexible uses.

Furthermore, the email points out the technical and practical errors in these assumptions. It argues against the notion that each address type should adhere to a rigid format or purpose, suggesting instead that all types strive for maximum compression and versatility. The correspondence specifically criticizes the false dichotomy between different 'use types' and witness versions, highlighting it as a product of technical specifics rather than the intended application by users.

Additionally, the message brings attention to the potential for more sophisticated schemes, such as a hash tree signature scheme with a hidden branch. This would allow for functionality akin to Taproot's "key-happy-path or script-fallback" mechanism, thereby supporting a more flexible and efficient use of blockchain technology. This example serves to underline the drawbacks of the current system's limitations, emphasizing the need for a design that accommodates a wider range of functionalities without compromising on the original motivations behind its design.