From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RaD0y-0002z0-Ed for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:02:24 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RaD0x-0004me-Ck for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:02:24 +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 E065A560507; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:02:17 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Pieter Wuille Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:02:11 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.4-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201112061610.41083.luke@dashjr.org> <201112101316.31666.luke@dashjr.org> <20111212205559.GA16665@ulyssis.org> In-Reply-To: <20111212205559.GA16665@ulyssis.org> 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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112121602.12806.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -2.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RaD0x-0004me-Ck Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:02:24 -0000 On Monday, December 12, 2011 3:56:01 PM Pieter Wuille wrote: > It seems base58 is actually quite terrible for producing nice > human-recognizable addresses, even though base58 is specially intended for > human usage. We'll just have to deal with it, or completely overhaul it > and move to a saner encoding. Or both: use this proposal for 20-byte base58 for now, and overhaul it in the future (maybe when the block chain forks?). > 0: mainnet pubkey hashes ('1', as before) > 192: testnet pubnet hashes ('2', instead of 111, 'm' and 'n') > 5: mainnet script hashes ('3'; for OP_EVAL) > 196: testnet script hashes ('2', same as normal testnet addresses) Looks good here. > 12: mainnet private keys ('Q', 'R' or 'S', instead of 128, '5') > 204: testnet private keys ('7', instead of 239, '8' and '9') These are 32-byte, so have no reason IMO to follow the 20-byte proposal. Since a lot of services are already using version 128 ('5') for bitcoin private keys, and 128 is "reserved" in the 20-byte proposal, I think it's fair to leave it alone (for now).