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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RY2Hv-00078t-2u for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:10:55 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RY2Hs-0000jC-2n for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:10:55 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA5A56201C for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 21:10:46 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:10:39 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112061610.41083.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1RY2Hs-0000jC-2n Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Version bytes "2.0" X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:10:55 -0000 sipa made a nice specification for version numbers a while back, that seemed great at the time. However, there are concerns that it has overlooked a very important factor: usability in base58 encoding. The version currently chosen for script-based addresses (2) makes this excessively complicated for end users-- these addresses, once encoded, may begin with ANY of the following characters: 2opqrstuvwxyz Taking this into account, as well as sipa's original goals, I have come up with the following proposal: * Bits 128/64 define network class ** 0 = main network ** 64,128 = reserved ** 192 = test network * Bits 32/16 define network ** 0 = Bitcoin ** 16,32 = reserved ** 48 = OTHER (next octet) * Bits 8/4/2 define data class ** 0 = Public key hash ** 2 = Public key (raw) ** 4 = Script hash ** 6 = reserved ** 8 = Private key (raw) ** 10 = Signature ** 12 = reserved ** 14 = OTHER (next octet) * Bit 1 is freely chosen (for aesthetic assignment) Unlike sipa's proposal, however, I have (intentionally) neglected to consider the versions currently in use other than the widespread Bitcoin addresses. That means this reassigns the versions used by Namecoin and testnets, and probably messes with the (unmerged) key export format and signature formats. It "wastes" 2 bits (64 and 1) to accomplish aesthetic norms. Bit 64 *could* be assigned in the future if we ever have a "crunch". By using the high bit (128) to designate test networks, all testnet addresses will now begin with '2'. Bitcoin script-hash (aka OP_EVAL) addresses are assigned version 5 (using the aesthetic +1), which means they always begin with '3'. Signatures are on version 10 and/or 11, beginning with '5'. We get two first-class "networks" besides Bitcoin, addresses starting with '7' and 'E' (pubkey), and '9' and 'F' (script). I propose these should be assigned sparingly, only when a network has significant adoption-- the only one I would even *consider* might fit the requirement today is Namecoin. I would also suggest making merged mining support a requirement except for networks that have a proven-better proof-of-work (ie, NOT scrypt). Other networks can use the "other" value (thus beginning with 'L' and 'N') and a second octet (which can be divided up later). Thoughts? Luke