<blockquote>
<p>The following address uses witness version 0</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Correct.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>and its checksum is the one expected for bech32m addresses.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, it uses the bech32 checksum. What makes you conclude that it is bech32m?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>However, the combination of the two is not valid.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed. According to BIP350, witness v0 addresses must use the bech32 checksum, but witness v1 and up must use the bech32m checksum.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Is this address valid or invalid?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Valid.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T16:37:06.387Z
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
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T16:22:16.590Z
2022-08-05T16:22:16.590Z
Pieter Wuille
<p>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.</p>
<p><code>bc1qzeya3gp8xgegkev3pgpp2r2raj65lxsansy5erdghf8mm9xze8esuwg5yh</code></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Is this address valid or invalid?</p>
<p><a href="https://mempool.space/address/bc1qzeya3gp8xgegkev3pgpp2r2raj65lxsansy5erdghf8mm9xze8esuwg5yh" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://mempool.space/address/bc1qzeya3gp8xgegkev3pgpp2r2raj65lxsansy5erdghf8mm9xze8esuwg5yh</a></p>

<address><lightning-network><bech32-address><bip350-bech32m>
Actively used bech32(m) address with invalid checksum?
C-Otto
# Actively used bech32(m) address with invalid checksum?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-05)

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>

**Tags:** address, lightning-network, bech32-address, bip350-bech32m


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-08-05. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

> 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.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: 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).  

---

