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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <nadav@shesek.info>) id 1Uq89Y-00050b-Hp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:41:52 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-ve0-f173.google.com ([209.85.128.173])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Uq89X-0007jo-K8
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:41:52 +0000
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id jw11so6803438veb.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state;
bh=KbIkP6pVICjImbOHrAWscvf097ukbdnzXTdCbpsRGVo=;
b=fYgVt1aYme3pryUmIDVUl6TZmFVhwE6OzcPfUXO5CuqE1h8d9+B79cGScjK80FP3c6
njVfqaUnsoYM8rFjBw0NDbbxYx+cogZM1r1TOAFYdW//BO1R6XHlY5xNprY6VlT33O7S
0mnMbDkjKGD5TUCc59tDM5I+K18SiGeQX9PHSwgxA8ihvK9ae1dCkbGlPJD5gxfwVji0
63VSfEpAhI0mJlBxVxtX0OkH88Jg5piuAPGUM0JsprQigqEfcKG2ce3Dw1YwkQ3nA1Nw
2QlTEWqGybjnPWYL52xOxWZAe2Okn60tcVF5vnjtcMDxGvzxvw0Iq6Ta6DezL+2kWOvi
+TkQ==
X-Received: by 10.58.243.2 with SMTP id wu2mr6709328vec.74.1371847306079; Fri,
21 Jun 2013 13:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.36.177 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [217.132.7.235]
In-Reply-To: <CAGXD5f1RRuwDJsLUiQVOXzeHFPA5HrBvatjvhDw9oFO7yNe-og@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGXD5f1RRuwDJsLUiQVOXzeHFPA5HrBvatjvhDw9oFO7yNe-og@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:41:25 +0300
Message-ID: <CAGXD5f3ZDjVHROA5mzUJLgyTmyRZYOVYpZ2ErYYCFPoixxd+Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGy746wqLfGCrt3AhcoXkPzzI6JgnLKw+o5kBs1YwbtA/juFwEgqOVbf7lKS8bSDPYoRPC
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
X-Headers-End: 1Uq89X-0007jo-K8
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Standard public key base58-check address
prefix?
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: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:41:52 -0000
Just a small clarification: I was referring to the actual public key,
and not the hash160 of it used for Bitcoin addresses. Its usually not
used, but it is needed for multisig transaction.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:25 PM, Nadav Ivgi <nadav@shesek.info> wrote:
> I'm working on a project that requires users to exchange public keys (for
> multisig transactions).
>
> It seems that hex encoding is usually used to display public keys (i.e. in
> bitaddress and brainwallet), which results in longer strings and lacks the
> 4-bytes verification.
>
> A standard way to encode public keys as base58-check addresses would make it
> easier and safer to display and exchange public keys. All that is really
> needed is deciding on a prefix byte.
>
> Perhaps we can use 0x37/0x38, which results in the letter P (for "Public")?
> It seems like those bytes aren't used for anything yet.
>
> Thanks,
> Nadav
|
