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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WkAt9-0004Ps-F7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:28:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WkAt8-0006wE-6N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:28:51 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id l6so202191oag.32 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.229.101 with SMTP id sp5mr21873736obc.52.1399980524609; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:28:44 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: mQ69QFD-K8aYYB_ZOenFaIr9uF8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1WkAt8-0006wE-6N 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 11:28:51 -0000 --001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And they can't just do NetworkParams.TESTNET = NetworkParams.REGTEST at the start of a program that is connecting to regtest? It's not like changing the address code is a huge problem or anything, but it would disrupt a bunch of people and seems kind of annoying. Surely there's a simpler way to work around this issue on their side? I mean their code already has to know what network is *expected*, right, otherwise what stops you accidentally trying to send coins cross chain? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >> > --001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And they can't just do

=C2=A0 Netwo= rkParams.TESTNET =3D NetworkParams.REGTEST=C2=A0

a= t the start of a program that is connecting to regtest?

It's not like changing the address code is a huge problem or anyt= hing, but it would disrupt a bunch of people and seems kind of annoying. Su= rely there's a simpler way to work around this issue on their side? I m= ean their code already has to know what network is expected, right, = otherwise what stops you accidentally trying to send coins cross chain?



On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.= com> wrote:
bitcore guesses the network= from the address version in several places in its code. =C2=A0They don'= ;t want to change that. =C2=A0Perhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for= them to use. =C2=A0I thought it might be simple to change the address vers= ion since its still relatively new and it isn't a real network. =C2=A0W= ould it be too much work to change?


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, 2014 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




--001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78--