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-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Unn85-0007m1-KK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:50:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.181; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Unn81-0004H8-Nf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:50:41 +0000 Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id w10so1267135lbi.12 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:50:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.19.162 with SMTP id g2mr2751591lbe.9.1371289830942; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:50:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.2.8 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:50:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201306111529.13657.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201306111529.13657.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:50:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: Melvin Carvalho To: Luke-Jr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93d909241f14a04df2e4b70 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 (melvincarvalho[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: 1Unn81-0004H8-Nf Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin addresses -- opaque or not 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: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:50:41 -0000 --14dae93d909241f14a04df2e4b70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell > > nothing about the address by examining the characters. > > This is true or false based on CONTEXT. > > Obviously, an implementation of transaction handling (eg, wallets) needs > to be > able to translate addresses to and from what they represent. > > On the other hand, things like URI handlers do not (and should not) try to > interpret the address as anything other than an arbitrary word (\w+). > I think this statement may need to be justified. > > > My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has > > changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples at > > least some of the following would now be false: > > The wiki goes into much detail on how addresses work, which is not the > concern > of most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but may be of interest to humans > and developers working on the one component that operates the "black box" > that > addresses are. > > > -------- > > > > -------- > > These aren't FALSE, they are "true at the moment, but subject to revision > by > newer standards". > Got it. > > > I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ... > when > > was this established? > > I stated (on IRC) that it was likely Bitcoin would change from the base58 > encoding for addresses ... at some unspecified time in the future, to some > unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. What > those changes will be, or when, are not all established at this time. The > only > currently-planned change to addresses (very loosely defined) is inclusion > of > the Payment Protocol URIs. But the point is that software developers > shouldn't > assume that addresses will remain base58 forever. > Does this mean that people should not be investing in "vanity addresses"? > > Luke > --14dae93d909241f14a04df2e4b70 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote= :
On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrot= e:
> For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can = tell
> nothing about the address by examining the characters.

This is true or false based on CONTEXT.

Obviously, an implementation of transaction handling (eg, wallets) needs to= be
able to translate addresses to and from what they represent.

On the other hand, things like URI handlers do not (and should not) try to<= br> interpret the address as anything other than an arbitrary word (\w+).

I think this statement may need to be justif= ied.
=A0

> My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has > changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples= at
> least some of the following would now be false:

The wiki goes into much detail on how addresses work, which is not th= e concern
of most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but may be of interest to humans=
and developers working on the one component that operates the "black b= ox" that
addresses are.

> --------
> <snip>
> --------

These aren't FALSE, they are "true at the moment, but subject to r= evision by
newer standards".

Got it.
=A0

> I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ...= when
> was this established?

I stated (on IRC) that it was likely Bitcoin would change from the ba= se58
encoding for addresses ... at some unspecified time in the future, to some<= br> unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. What those changes will be, or when, are not all established at this time. The o= nly
currently-planned change to addresses (very loosely defined) is inclusion o= f
the Payment Protocol URIs. But the point is that software developers should= n't
assume that addresses will remain base58 forever.

=
Does this mean that people should not be investing in "vani= ty addresses"?
=A0

Luke

--14dae93d909241f14a04df2e4b70--