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 D9D78AF5 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:26:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883391A0 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:26:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w2so11687870ywa.9 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:26:31 -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=E32L3dx2Aqoe8uUxmCkDSneA3jIi1UY0/MKnvv9hc5o=; b=uSGYQkZFPexXTNOscA5CZAc5FVDWrtG7b9lm2CNGFxN49pqP/EGyqw/3llRHJTzkmi 6UTHGV1oLay0P/bHGZt5BPQyDVotd0hmbRtndi9P2k/RFz0+KUgjX+rG4/ZvkjIYZNyz x6O/So4WuPVNajtrdYveFbD6DAdV2qY64g2aGe9g0tB03YZVJkrYS8a0Fjj+Av9L3Mt2 GfirNiEbggjYXhjeL2rwTjV5tRuo/sCffepTpyfUAp5XSa42nrVvrQeM2pQI0zBF+dJA HaAfKJoVqvoI/PNqhrHQ8KPf9DiUNK5MVc74StP1EsBxHLBtm/CAXD8bUVrZ18bh/iN8 Cjqw== 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=E32L3dx2Aqoe8uUxmCkDSneA3jIi1UY0/MKnvv9hc5o=; b=YXRh+bjXC27LApErPV15DDA3Kkm9eYsABZ5bLnAZFrMLY1FY39GH/er5SZapF+Sx63 mTi3LGAkDpYPQqHwmjeYp8aJ+V/z67Xlgesof+9PyRxODupXErYHs6aUz5sf9/jy5ECS 612Hjx90XNV6KizylTQdkGMomlXisnGcdHeQ0K6tcbxoA+2qtiDgOWet7Vdl+/owZOx7 OTm4hsuv2fyTato8EDm/eQ8TSGkt72JjHPBPNIXhROOeWwD4vaMYwjR232AV0dn7bt/F 0OdcLzYmtV+Xz7Ttml3fEwklsUTFWmLvickvHLq+M9n468xv2s0pr0YevxOkCmtFK8w0 XRzg== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXIzq6gB4UzeqKp1NbwqOyVBna6iPL1lLZo/a61LRwIHDP5kevv +BOJIiosUG57G9R+8yvoFGlEc9o3bJ8KeStTlatuiQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QxIfKwLLXzO6ZhmVs2euT1nm2sddkarGcpKXib09O6jNX6P4Cpfsbkcq4IDQTIJbIA0m0yJRM4ZoURjhG3ju4= X-Received: by 10.37.198.5 with SMTP id k5mr5683727ybf.514.1509373590567; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:26:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.135.11 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.135.11 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:26:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Pieter Wuille Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:26:29 -0700 Message-ID: To: shiva sitamraju , Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c08d01eb2ffb1055cc46c4b" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Visually Differentiable - Bitcoin 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:26:32 -0000 --94eb2c08d01eb2ffb1055cc46c4b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Oct 30, 2017 15:21, "shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: For example bc1qeklep85ntjz4605drds6aww9u0qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6hak in 461e8a4aa0a0e75c06602c505bd7aa06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb00379d6 is 62 bytes ! ... While I get the error/checksum capabilities Bech32 brings, any user would prefer a 20 byte address with a checksum over an address that would wrap several lines !! That's an unfair comparison. You're pasting a P2WSH address which contains a 256-bit hash. A P2WPKH address (which only contains a 160-bit hash, just like P2PKH and P2SH) in Bech32 is only 42 characters, not 62. Cheers, -- Pieter --94eb2c08d01eb2ffb1055cc46c4b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Oct 30, 2017 15:21, "shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev"= ; <bitcoin-dev@= lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
For example bc1= qeklep85ntjz4605drds6aww9u0qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6hak in 46= 1e8a4aa0a0e75c06602c505bd7aa06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb00379d6 is= 62 bytes !

...

While I get the erro= r/checksum capabilities Bech32 brings, any user would prefer a 20 byte addr= ess with a checksum=C2=A0 over an address that would wrap several lines !!= =C2=A0
That's an unfair comparison. You're pasti= ng a P2WSH address which contains a 256-bit hash.
A P2WPKH address (which only contains a 160-bit h= ash, just like P2PKH and P2SH) in Bech32 is only 42 characters, not 62.

Cheers,

--=C2=A0
Pieter

--94eb2c08d01eb2ffb1055cc46c4b--