From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RrMkc-0008Fb-Km for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:52:26 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nm39-vm5.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.229.165]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RrMkc-0000DI-0B for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:52:26 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm39.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2012 04:52:20 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.233] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2012 04:52:20 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jan 2012 04:52:20 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 382722.62221.bm@omp1048.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 79135 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jan 2012 04:52:20 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: WGpGvR8VM1nb.iTUqoDppxwJx_A9gyg4QudpQRen3Ikzajg 7ZgEy2WW3ahwC8mRfgHbTSNOEY5JUF4vLbShWizj63qY7.5brrrsvyf8uaUN nj.GP4Vjd21QZkL0PWAJw3TaggX8lqH5Bc7za3p.sT8sLc_tF.2vqcM5rCfv zqF37gZ2qtwsxnNn2rjmgWFEv2xxIQvHCm6TJxt3oteemACHYs5FjOlwn.uz V7TeS3xwztQjNQsQ2vMddzbyqNoDJEqC7sGLTetPXH0.WIoey4_kp18W3iJi K7z9jRoI1KFA2Tt3hvq0Lv8glw4AWbAQ6T9LUlWXirVB45QH3goWajTmxx1Q mKKhurRho67y5wLSaoD.uFZI73yokP1qPT7rnAUMJY260zZoWF0793JMu_g- - Received: from [92.20.138.208] by web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:52:20 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.116.331537 Message-ID: <1327812740.41242.YahooMailNeo@web121002.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:52:20 -0800 (PST) From: Amir Taaki To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (zgenjix[at]yahoo.com) 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [98.138.229.165 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RrMkc-0000DI-0B Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Quote on BIP 16 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Amir Taaki List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:52:26 -0000 Gavin said:=0A"Part of the controversy is whether really long bitcoin addre= sses would work-- would it be OK if the new bitcoin addresses were really l= ong and looked something like this:=A0=A057HrrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBE7H= rrfEw6ZgRS58dygiHhfN7vVhaPaBiTE7vVhaPaBE7Hr=0A(or possibly even longer)=0A= =0AI've argued no: past 70 or so characters it becomes a lot harder to copy= and paste, a lot harder to scan an address with your eyes to see if you're= paying who you think you're paying, harder to create a readable QR code, h= arder to upgrade website or database code that deals with bitcoin addresses= , etc. There is rough consensus that very-long addresses are not workable."= =0A=0AHow could you have a 70 byte long address without a P2SH scheme? Is t= his a mistake?