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 ) 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:17:02 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Michael_Gr=F8nager?= 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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)