From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WkAU1-0007TC-1g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:02:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.51; envelope-from=wtogami@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f51.google.com ([209.85.213.51]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WkAU0-00064A-1k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:02:53 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f73so114227yha.24 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:02:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.15.102 with SMTP id e66mr50124250yhe.69.1399978966575; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.58.77 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:02:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 01:02:46 -1000 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (wtogami[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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 X-Headers-End: 1WkAU0-00064A-1k Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal 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, 13 May 2014 11:02:53 -0000 --089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 bitcore guesses the network from the address version in several places in its code. They don't want to change that. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for them to use. I thought it might be simple to change the address version since its still relatively new and it isn't a real network. Would it be too much work to change? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would also have to be > changed. > > You didn't provide a rationale for this. What's the cost of having them be > the same? > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be >> unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. >> >> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes >> For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. >> >> We need to know if any existing tools would need to be modified to >> support this change to regtest. Do existing tools outside of pull tester >> expect regtest to have testnet addresses? If the quantity of tools that >> currently handle regtest is small then we can modify them to the new >> address versions. >> >> Warren Togami >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE >> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. >> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform >> available >> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > --089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
bitcore guesses the network from the address version in se= veral places in its code. =C2=A0They don't want to change that. =C2=A0P= erhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for them to use. =C2=A0I thought i= t might be simple to change the address version since its still relatively = new and it isn't a real network. =C2=A0Would it be too much work to cha= nge?


On Tue, May 1= 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would als= o have to be changed.

You didn't provide a rationale= for this. What's the cost of having them be the same?


On Tue, May 13, 2= 014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wrote= :
Hi folks,

I propose changing all of the= address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer ident= ical to testnet.

For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or= R.

We need to know if any existing tools would ne= ed to be modified to support this change to regtest. =C2=A0Do existing tool= s outside of pull tester expect regtest to have testnet addresses? =C2=A0If= the quantity of tools that currently handle regtest is small then we can m= odify them to the new address versions.

Warren Togami


-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE=
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform availa= ble
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net= /sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment



--089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf--