1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1RzRF3-0001sU-J2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:17:13 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.54.49]
helo=mail.ceptacle.com)
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RzRF1-0003V4-5A for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:17:13 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C1317A7DD8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:17:03 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com
Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024) with ESMTP id 8FdcXHavYlVh
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [109.105.106.212] (unknown [109.105.106.212])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 884EF17A7DCE
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:17:02 +0100 (CET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:17:01 +0100
Message-Id: <3DA9C79B-D91D-48B2-9469-37BAA037FC50@ceptacle.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1RzRF1-0003V4-5A
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP-13
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: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:17:13 -0000
Just posted this on the wiki BIP-13 discussion - should I make it into a =
BIP of its own ?
---
The "version" portion of the address has so far been labeled "network =
id", and indicates from which network and which chain the address can be =
used for. I think that this change from network id to version is much =
more fundamental and should not just be squeezed in along with bip16/17. =
The right way to do this is to structure the bitcoin address into:
base58-encode: [one-byte network ID][20-byte hash][one-byte address =
class][3-byte checksum]
This will move the possibility of using a faulty address from 1 to 4bill =
to 1 to 24mio. Recall that for most other payment systems this checksum =
is 1 to 9! So it should be sufficient. An old client will then render =
the new addresses as useless and they will still maintain their old =
familiar 1xxx look - the whole point in multisig is that it should not =
be a matter of the paying party to worry about securing wallet of the =
receiver, hence he should not be bothered with a new "3" kind of address =
now... --Michael Gronager/libcoin 10:49, 20 February 2012 (GMT)
|
