Nice questions. Right here you have got the solutions to each.
Sure: any pre-existing management block for scripts A, B, C turns into invalid after a Tapret dedication is inserted.
1. Query 1: depth change and management block reconstruction
In RGB Protocol v0.11.1, Tapret inserts a 64-byte unspendable leaf at depth 1. If Script_A was initially at depth 1 (single-leaf, empty Merkle path), after insertion it strikes to depth 2.
The spender should reconstruct the management block to incorporate tHT (the Tapret leaf hash) within the Merkle path — the unique empty-path management block is now not legitimate.
The output secret’s:
Q = P + t·G
the place t = tH_TWEAK(P || Script_root)
Script_root adjustments → t adjustments → Q adjustments. The scripts themselves stay legitimate — A, B, C are nonetheless within the tree — however the witness path to succeed in them is completely different.
The place Tapret lands: lexicographic ordering
Tapret is positioned at depth 1, however left or proper depends upon evaluating tHT to tHABC (hash of the sibling subtree):
- Case a — tHT > tHABC: Tapret goes proper. Proof = (tHABC, P) — minimal disclosure.
- Case b1 — tHT < tHABC, sibling is a department: proof reveals tHAB + tHC + P.
- Case b2 — tHT < tHABC, sibling is a leaf: proof reveals tH_LEAF(C) + P.
The final byte of the dedication is a Nonce — the prover can increment it to mine tHT > tHABC and power right-side placement, minimizing proof dimension and script disclosure.
2. Query 2: recent P2TR tackle per state transition
Sure: RGB all the time derives a recent P2TR tackle for every state transition, even when the interior key P stays the identical. Every new Tapret dedication adjustments Script_root, which adjustments t, which adjustments Q. Identical P, completely different tackle each time.
Supply: RGB Protocol v0.11.1 — Tapret
