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)
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] BIP-13
Precedence: list

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)