https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/
Most coherent solution would be to include the coinbase in the inclusion proof, but this would make the claim size dependent on miners instead of the peg-maker. Alternatively we could employ the single-sha2 variant, for coinbase transactions larger than 64 bytes.
Another issue is we should be fixing our own merkle trees for spv/peg uses, possibly with prefixing as mentioned in the article.
https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/
Most coherent solution would be to include the coinbase in the inclusion proof, but this would make the claim size dependent on miners instead of the peg-maker. Alternatively we could employ the single-sha2 variant, for coinbase transactions larger than 64 bytes.
Another issue is we should be fixing our own merkle trees for spv/peg uses, possibly with prefixing as mentioned in the article.