Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Qrupu-0002cJ-4R for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:43:54 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Qrupo-00006I-F7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:43:54 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-67-77-87-241.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [67.77.87.241]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A3E756051D; Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:43:38 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: Gavin Andresen Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:43:22 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <201108121219.53004.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108121243.24207.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.8 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.8 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Qrupo-00006I-F7 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [PULL] When parsing base58 data, accept [0O] as o, and [l|!] as 1 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: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 16:43:54 -0000 On Friday, August 12, 2011 12:35:27 PM Gavin Andresen wrote: > pszDecode58 is not a pointer to a zero-terminated string; it should be > pnDecode58. Updated variable name in branch... > I'm torn between "meh, whatever" and "this will just cause people > headaches when they wonder why vanity addresses don't work in > blockexplorer because theymos decides not to bother changing his > code..." Perhaps the vanity use would need to be introduced only after the community has accepted these as alternative legitimate representations. Even without that, I think gracefully handling the typos would be sensible.