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
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
Return-Path: <ts@cronosurf.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F60C000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 21 Aug 2021 04:52:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425B4400D0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 21 Aug 2021 04:52:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id qQJig2W7nIlZ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 21 Aug 2021 04:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from premium29-m.web-hosting.com (premium29-m.web-hosting.com
[68.65.120.189])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB214013B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 21 Aug 2021 04:52:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [189.174.9.220] (port=55342 helo=[192.168.1.88])
by premium29.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls
TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2)
(envelope-from <ts@cronosurf.com>)
id 1mHIzb-000kxL-L9; Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:52:33 -0400
To: Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <f31bc6b0-f9b3-be4c-190c-fc292821b24b@cronosurf.com>
<aO1qYUmtGXPJupl0ol3E221AR4XKwqriqk3Y5fVS2_asquaV8Vaxkb4Ffq2EiVMrR5bb4cXAzxAV3cOciaYsuqJoFXoc6vTOoveKURVTmLU=@protonmail.com>
<8565f40b-2f32-cf31-6c47-971a6e57cb41@cronosurf.com>
<CALL-=e4BJvr21W=MY-xG9i+CSvSmKC2UsO9A=B4DKq-WV6_-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: ts <ts@cronosurf.com>
Message-ID: <f1bfc456-4adc-2f3a-5598-b0d7947f8de0@cronosurf.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 23:52:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALL-=e4BJvr21W=MY-xG9i+CSvSmKC2UsO9A=B4DKq-WV6_-Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - premium29.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - cronosurf.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: premium29.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
ts@cronosurf.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: premium29.web-hosting.com: ts@cronosurf.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 07:50:26 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Human readable checksum (verification code) to
avoid errors on BTC public addresses
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 04:52:38 -0000
Hello Karl,
Yes, I agree in general. But while the visual checksum could be sometimes more interesting and
even useful, I guess that the technically simpler solution might be more likely to be adopted.
And also less prone to error. Just a thought.
Cheers,
TS
Karl wrote on 8/19/21 4:05 PM:
> Something that could work really well here could be having a norm of using the checksum for
> bright colors, weights, sizes, capitalizations, and/or spacing of the characters of the
> address, making different addresses more clearly visually distinct.
>
> Ethereum uses mixed case to do this a little bit:
> https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-55#implementation
> <https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-55#implementation>
>
> It seems to me the checksum at the end of the address is sufficient for differentiating error,
> but making a checksum more visually distinctive is indeed an opportunity to add another
> digest, reducing collisions and such.
|
