Close Menu
  • Home
  • Cryptocurrency
    • Bitcoin
    • Litecoin
  • Startup
  • Ethereum
  • Forex
  • Stock
  • XRP
    • XRP Interactive Projection Dashboard
    • Xrp Projections

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

What's Hot

Why do I get “Invalid Taproot management block measurement” when spending a P2TR script path?

February 18, 2026

November 2025 Work Progress: ZEC Improve

February 18, 2026

Shiba Inu Value Prediction 2026, 2027, 2028-2032

February 18, 2026
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
  • Crowdfunding
  • Crypto Mining
  • Entrepreneur
  • Fintech
  • Mompreneur
  • Venture Capital
XRP Research Hub | Price Projections, Whitepapers & Institutional DataXRP Research Hub | Price Projections, Whitepapers & Institutional Data
  • Home
  • Cryptocurrency
    • Bitcoin
    • Litecoin
  • Startup
  • Ethereum
  • Forex
  • Stock
  • XRP
    • XRP Interactive Projection Dashboard
    • Xrp Projections
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
XRP Research Hub | Price Projections, Whitepapers & Institutional DataXRP Research Hub | Price Projections, Whitepapers & Institutional Data
Home»Bitcoin»Why do I get “Invalid Taproot management block measurement” when spending a P2TR script path?
Bitcoin

Why do I get “Invalid Taproot management block measurement” when spending a P2TR script path?

Roe NeremBy Roe NeremFebruary 18, 2026No Comments2 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Why do I get “Invalid Taproot management block measurement” when spending a P2TR script path?
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


For this particular error, the same old suspects are double length-prefixing or unintentionally together with the annex. Double-prefixing is the one I see most frequently.

The management block must be one witness stack ingredient, uncooked bytes. Structure:

<1 byte: leaf_version | parity>
<32 bytes: inner key>
<32 bytes × depth: merkle path hashes>

(parity comes from the tweaked pubkey’s y-coordinate odd/even—you may have it should you derived Q accurately.) No compactSize inside. No splitting.

Your ser_string name — that is the issue. Witness serialization already length-prefixes every stack merchandise. So once you do ser_string(control_block), you are including an additional prefix. The node checks (len - 33) % 32 == 0; one further byte and that test fails, therefore Invalid Taproot management block measurement. Simply concatenate:

control_block = b''.be part of([
    bytes([leaf_version | parity]),
    internal_pubkey,
    merkle_hash_1,
    merkle_hash_2
])

witness_stack = [preimage_or_sig, script, control_block]

Splitting into separate components — additionally incorrect. The node takes the final ingredient because the management block. In the event you break up, it solely sees hash2 (32 bytes) or no matter is final, so the dimensions test fails. You may also hit bad-witness-nonstandard earlier than script validation, relying on coverage.

Helpful manner to consider it: layer 1 is BIP 341’s management block format (33+32m bytes, validated by that (len-33)%32==0 test). Layer 2 is witness encoding (size prefix per ingredient). You solely outline layer 1; layer 2 is computerized. Do not combine them.

If dropping ser_string and utilizing a single blob fixes it, that was the difficulty. I’ve reproduced this on regtest—toggle solely the management block construct and the habits matches.

Refs: BIP 341, BIP 342.



Supply hyperlink

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Roe Nerem
  • Website

Related Posts

What Has to Change for Crypto to Go Mainstream 

February 17, 2026

Volatility is the Final Check

February 16, 2026

Litecoin Closes Bullish — $57 Break Might Ignite Subsequent Leg Up

February 15, 2026

BITMAIN Reward Coupon Program – weblog.bitmain.com

February 14, 2026
Add A Comment
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss
Bitcoin

Why do I get “Invalid Taproot management block measurement” when spending a P2TR script path?

By Roe NeremFebruary 18, 2026

For this particular error, the same old suspects are double length-prefixing or unintentionally together with…

November 2025 Work Progress: ZEC Improve

February 18, 2026

Shiba Inu Value Prediction 2026, 2027, 2028-2032

February 18, 2026

New Yr Giving: Begin the Yr by Altering Lives

February 18, 2026
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Copyright © 2026 xrpresearchhub.All Right Reserved.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.