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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <vv01f@riseup.net>) id 1YIII7-0008Nv-QK
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:47:55 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net
designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender)
client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=vv01f@riseup.net;
helo=mx1.riseup.net;
Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YIII6-0000HE-Kg
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:47:55 +0000
Received: from plantcutter.riseup.net (plantcutter-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.121])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net",
Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C174C40F79
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 2 Feb 2015 14:47:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
(Authenticated sender: vv01f) with ESMTPSA id 1BB852007D
Message-ID: <54CF8E10.5040402@riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:47:44 +0100
From: vv01f <vv01f@riseup.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:17.0) Gecko/20131005 Icedove/17.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CAG86ZOxYh+=rny3sPHeJ0qs6R=5frLXERKmwhVECGHo7tkrz3w@mail.gmail.com> <CANEZrP3Tuw3mJLSuoOA4iOmg6u9sdh-E5NNm_FgdYs3Mx39znA@mail.gmail.com> <manr4t$c1a$1@ger.gmane.org>
<54CF74A5.3050304@gk2.sk> <mao0u5$gbu$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <mao0u5$gbu$1@ger.gmane.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
OpenPGP: id=AD26D9FB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.5 at mx1
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay
lines
X-Headers-End: 1YIII6-0000HE-Kg
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Export format for xpub
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 14:47:55 -0000
On 02.02.2015 15:17, Andreas Schildbach wrote:
>> Uff, I would expect YYYYMMDD there so it's human readable as well.
>
> Those strings are not meant to be read by humans. YYYYMMDD is more
> complicated than necessary, given that Bitcoin deals with seconds since
> epoch everywhere.
First that is a pitty .. as its simply a waste of storage.
but back to Pavol's point: IMHO no harm to anything, as Bitcoin never
has any valid timestamp below ~1230768000 (jan2009) and thus will always
have 10 digits.. you can easily identify 8 char long timestamp as the
proposed format.
And there never is anything wrong with having a transparent, human
readable option - especially when it saves 2 bytes in e.g. qr-codes.
|
