diff options
| author | Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> | 2013-06-15 11:50:30 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2013-06-15 09:50:41 +0000 |
| commit | 9fa003edc8cb5b189b2cfa7155cde1a3678105af (patch) | |
| tree | 7bb34c69995b5adf3db0315cab3d72e9d6fe7b66 | |
| parent | 5b32e4aac4da658b4f3667372c353331e0564f31 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-9fa003edc8cb5b189b2cfa7155cde1a3678105af.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-9fa003edc8cb5b189b2cfa7155cde1a3678105af.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin addresses -- opaque or not
| -rw-r--r-- | 86/fc9da14d4950295091e8a8c9c5d300e45268ac | 211 |
1 files changed, 211 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/86/fc9da14d4950295091e8a8c9c5d300e45268ac b/86/fc9da14d4950295091e8a8c9c5d300e45268ac new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e07477ea1 --- /dev/null +++ b/86/fc9da14d4950295091e8a8c9c5d300e45268ac @@ -0,0 +1,211 @@ +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 <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + 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: <CAKaEYhJ+v0NfbzVEDEUh69D-n_4=Nd544fsm0a++QwsqcS3RVw@mail.gmail.com> + <201306111529.13657.luke@dashjr.org> +Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:50:30 +0200 +Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKjvtPf_Xs=Q8tAJt_7PuxCAnym2-kJadNoSdWCHjXNDA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> +To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> +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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +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: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=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 <luke@dashjr.org> 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. +> +> > -------- +> > <snip> +> > -------- +> +> 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 + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail= +_quote">On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mai= +lto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote= +:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le= +ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> +<div class=3D"im">On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrot= +e:<br> +> For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can = +tell<br> +> nothing about the address by examining the characters.<br> +<br> +</div>This is true or false based on CONTEXT.<br> +<br> +Obviously, an implementation of transaction handling (eg, wallets) needs to= + be<br> +able to translate addresses to and from what they represent.<br> +<br> +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+).<br></= +blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this statement may need to be justif= +ied.<br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg= +in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> + +<div class=3D"im"><br> +> My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has<br= +> +> changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples= + at<br> +> least some of the following would now be false:<br> +<br> +</div>The wiki goes into much detail on how addresses work, which is not th= +e concern<br> +of most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but may be of interest to humans= +<br> +and developers working on the one component that operates the "black b= +ox" that<br> +addresses are.<br> +<br> +> --------<br> +> <snip><br> +> --------<br> +<br> +These aren't FALSE, they are "true at the moment, but subject to r= +evision by<br> +newer standards".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Got it.<br></div= +><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex= +;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> +<div class=3D"im"><br> +> I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ...= + when<br> +> was this established?<br> +<br> +</div>I stated (on IRC) that it was likely Bitcoin would change from the ba= +se58<br> +encoding for addresses ... at some unspecified time in the future, to some<= +br> +unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. What<b= +r> +those changes will be, or when, are not all established at this time. The o= +nly<br> +currently-planned change to addresses (very loosely defined) is inclusion o= +f<br> +the Payment Protocol URIs. But the point is that software developers should= +n't<br> +assume that addresses will remain base58 forever.<br></blockquote><div><br>= +</div><div>Does this mean that people should not be investing in "vani= +ty addresses"?<br></div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote= +" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> + +<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> +Luke<br> +</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div> + +--14dae93d909241f14a04df2e4b70-- + + |