MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJN5wHVdneuRv6Vpf4q3d=mqwu2HkNeJwFhoqPHFiQcatt4RSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE0pACLMcMzHkA=vEx+fiEmq7FA1bXDc4t_hQ+955=r=62V5=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CF21152C-15FA-421C-B369-A9A7DB59865F@ricmoo.com>
	<CADJgMztaJHDrz0+7KLouwZMCz--Za6-2pitmjjYVHG+nJjrG=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<2509151.XgrrNGsCxR@crushinator>
	<CABm2gDpC55dsr4GNAUabgnOeXcNTrgHSAtM7Jqfp0_QUfjXmoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJN5wHVdneuRv6Vpf4q3d=mqwu2HkNeJwFhoqPHFiQcatt4RSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 23:59:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMzuK6YpLyFQ1BnHuWi4GyoqOgnuaA7T3odukpB=Hh3pTgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] RFC - BIP: URI scheme for Blockchain exploration
Precedence: list

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Danny Thorpe via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Rather than using an inhumanly long hex string from the genesis hash to
> distinguish between mainnet and testnet, why not use the network magic bytes
> instead? Much shorter, just as distinct.

There's nothing stopping two coins having the same magic bytes, but
communicating on separate ports.

> I'd still prefer a common network name mapping for the sake of humanity. Few
> bitcoin library implementations use the same string names for mainnet and
> testnet. This BIP could simply define one string name alias for each
> supported network and leave mapping to local lingo to the implementors.

The only sane way to me see to have cointype like BIP44.
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#coin-type