From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27FD9B1F for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:50:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (mail-oi0-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85C357C for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id o67so19419192oib.1 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:50:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=w5x4hg18zA5zGteKLiVXOwK/vufDPS/Eh08LvhoKEDk=; b=K3ggnB7RQoG8gf+Tp4Zpdoc8llVfMaOBvg2T9rLW2deYPtsHNGz7tup6HpfwS7u4p1 zcOB2994/O1jVoQiSqifLRXpiHRCpRCoZXSbgK5tsLyHRYNw3viqHF8102zncEp+5Ryi 3dgmlvaWEsIfoSqunvQ5a7kllpywnw5XP7xO8sSec4ZDI5emmirD4WnZ9F/Y4yIT6WOM Ss4ZiMroJcHpG1h2Ur6xValQ/iO4cYkRYGfVlwFQO9SwXdtQF13GXuIwpl9nKeZX35iq qRvn1eT8+lKmVpMWaa6XMB1GuitOW/Bp4Siy+pqL7WsWhErUb+7UIbv8L4H1r3xqJam+ 32iw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=w5x4hg18zA5zGteKLiVXOwK/vufDPS/Eh08LvhoKEDk=; b=kzKOwhvLoTpaHqufwTOFMvFO7D9K0RICUdW8uSyecuxHbtGOb4XtHJH4VV0eH4Ty5h Wz/a4WGfxUcwtOo8wVBzUV2GtgfHYbWGrJSehasxvbCBUTGx/NSraoYU+SzT25f+l5e/ joZrxG4Qcf1xclDOPCA2hBXxbwSxJjcM1gTlFc0LTy0pe6qhQPhli5m74XORrp4odksd YWo5bd1dk9PPYXmdRz911dSFhAch7jOCLYysqjI4ZdIyhp2lZVqIYG2tlKtKLxGX/pbI qsAHrzET3J+aGMJDZfOPShWuT2+FcST9WSTlLOQUa8ZVk9MhsvAIljBYjVpbhJwS120x OM0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3++fawIMho9tHW/IuD7GkXH4F3ksgycEwLBm0ypS7AMLA5kQu7C4o1BEXFD4QYy1a4zyut+8nnfv4bjA== X-Received: by 10.157.5.139 with SMTP id 11mr2012891otd.43.1490849454809; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.74.28.70 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:50:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170321191454.GA17834@savin.petertodd.org> From: Lucas Ontivero Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:50:54 -0300 Message-ID: To: Andreas Schildbach , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1137281c2b36ef054beb704d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:28:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A BIP proposal for segwit addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 04:50:56 -0000 --001a1137281c2b36ef054beb704d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I don't know if i should response to this mail list or make a comment in commit file ( https://github.com/sipa/bech32/commit/52b5a0fa6d3174c4150393fb7d6b58d34b4f5e0b#diff-d23a42e5c904045098e8f8b1189f481e ) * Motivation: Here I think it could worth to mention that 58 requires mathematical operations over big numbers. This is not very fast and most of the programming languages don't provide support for big numbers OOB. * Why not make an address format that is generic for all scriptPubKeys?: I understand that if a new generic encoding format is introduced that could lead to some confusions but what if in the future there is a new type of address that can also be encoded with bech32? Don't we need a address type anyway? thx 2017-03-29 7:07 GMT-03:00 Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > On 03/21/2017 08:14 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:16:30PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach via > bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> Why use Base 32 when the QR code alphanumeric mode allows 44 characters? > >> In Bitcoin Wallet, I use Base 43 (alphabet: > >> "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ$*+-./:") for most efficient QR > >> code encoding. I only leave out the space character because it gets > >> replaced by "+" in URLs. > > > > Doing that only makes addresses a few % shorter, at the cost of > significant > > downsides. For example, not everyone knows what those additional > characters > > are called, particularly for non-English-speaking users. Non-alphanumeric > > characters also complicate using the addresses in a variety of contexts > ('/' > > in particularly isn't valid in filenames). > > I'm not convinced that transmitting addresses via voice should be a > usecase to target at. I don't understand your comment about non-english > speaking users. Obviously they cannot voice-communicate at all with > only-english-speaking users, so there is no need to communicate > voice-communicate addresses between them. > > Addresses in QR codes, addresses in URLs and addresses in NFC NDEF > messages are the three most used forms. > > Speaking of URLs, actually Base 32 (as well as Base 43) makes QR codes > *bigger* because due to the characters used for URL parameters (?&=) > those QR codes are locked to binary mode. To make them shorter, we'd > need to use something like "Base 64url" (or ideally Base 94 -- all > printable ASCII characters). > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a1137281c2b36ef054beb704d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't know if i should response to this mail list or= make a comment in commit file (https://github.com/sipa/bech32/commit/52b5a0fa6d3174c4150393fb7d= 6b58d34b4f5e0b#diff-d23a42e5c904045098e8f8b1189f481e)

* Motivati= on:

Here I think it could worth to mention that 58 requi= res mathematical operations over big numbers. This is not very fast and mos= t of the programming languages don't provide support for big numbers OO= B.

* Why not make an address format that is generic for all scriptPu= bKeys?:=C2=A0

I understand that if a new generic e= ncoding format is introduced that could lead to some confusions but what if= in the future there is a new type of address that can also be encoded with= bech32? Don't we need a address type anyway?

= thx


2017-03-29 7:07 GMT-03:00 Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev <= span dir=3D"ltr"><bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:<= br>
On 03/21/2017 08:14 PM, = Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:16:30PM +0100, Andreas Schildbach via bitco= in-dev wrote:
>> Why use Base 32 when the QR code alphanumeric mode allows 44 chara= cters?
>> In Bitcoin Wallet, I use Base 43 (alphabet:
>> "0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ$*+-./:")= for most efficient QR
>> code encoding. I only leave out the space character because it get= s
>> replaced by "+" in URLs.
>
> Doing that only makes addresses a few % shorter, at the cost of signif= icant
> downsides.=C2=A0 For example, not everyone knows what those additional= characters
> are called, particularly for non-English-speaking users. Non-alphanume= ric
> characters also complicate using the addresses in a variety of context= s ('/'
> in particularly isn't valid in filenames).

I'm not convinced that transmitting addresses via voice should b= e a
usecase to target at. I don't understand your comment about non-english=
speaking users. Obviously they cannot voice-communicate at all with
only-english-speaking users, so there is no need to communicate
voice-communicate addresses between them.

Addresses in QR codes, addresses in URLs and addresses in NFC NDEF
messages are the three most used forms.

Speaking of URLs, actually Base 32 (as well as Base 43) makes QR codes
*bigger* because due to the characters used for URL parameters (?&=3D)<= br> those QR codes are locked to binary mode. To make them shorter, we'd need to use something like "Base 64url" (or ideally Base 94 -- al= l
printable ASCII characters).


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a1137281c2b36ef054beb704d--