📅 Original date posted:2011-12-12
🗒️ Summary of this message: Base58 encoding is not ideal for human-readable addresses, and may need to be overhauled. Proposed changes to encoding for Bitcoin addresses.
📝 Original message:On Monday, December 12, 2011 3:56:01 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:
> It seems base58 is actually quite terrible for producing nice
> human-recognizable addresses, even though base58 is specially intended for
> human usage. We'll just have to deal with it, or completely overhaul it
> and move to a saner encoding.
Or both: use this proposal for 20-byte base58 for now, and overhaul it in the
future (maybe when the block chain forks?).
> 0: mainnet pubkey hashes ('1', as before)
> 192: testnet pubnet hashes ('2', instead of 111, 'm' and 'n')
> 5: mainnet script hashes ('3'; for OP_EVAL)
> 196: testnet script hashes ('2', same as normal testnet addresses)
Looks good here.
> 12: mainnet private keys ('Q', 'R' or 'S', instead of 128, '5')
> 204: testnet private keys ('7', instead of 239, '8' and '9')
These are 32-byte, so have no reason IMO to follow the 20-byte proposal.
Since a lot of services are already using version 128 ('5') for bitcoin
private keys, and 128 is "reserved" in the 20-byte proposal, I think it's fair
to leave it alone (for now).
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 02:42:27
in reply to nevent1q…ujwv
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 02:42:27Event JSON
{
"id": "97bc6e713d245696b93e07f9f77c2bc9608a6cf802fc1872a636f05f2f513e37",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686105747,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"dafc4bff7fddee669abc41128874a420e7bc18987891f3733e199622fbdd2ca8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"5f99287a06d7d702f6367344f13610f13af738f8a5c001ea07cb6b37b01df8bc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-12-12\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Base58 encoding is not ideal for human-readable addresses, and may need to be overhauled. Proposed changes to encoding for Bitcoin addresses.\n📝 Original message:On Monday, December 12, 2011 3:56:01 PM Pieter Wuille wrote:\n\u003e It seems base58 is actually quite terrible for producing nice\n\u003e human-recognizable addresses, even though base58 is specially intended for\n\u003e human usage. We'll just have to deal with it, or completely overhaul it\n\u003e and move to a saner encoding.\n\nOr both: use this proposal for 20-byte base58 for now, and overhaul it in the \nfuture (maybe when the block chain forks?).\n\n\u003e 0: mainnet pubkey hashes ('1', as before)\n\u003e 192: testnet pubnet hashes ('2', instead of 111, 'm' and 'n')\n\u003e 5: mainnet script hashes ('3'; for OP_EVAL)\n\u003e 196: testnet script hashes ('2', same as normal testnet addresses)\n\nLooks good here.\n\n\u003e 12: mainnet private keys ('Q', 'R' or 'S', instead of 128, '5')\n\u003e 204: testnet private keys ('7', instead of 239, '8' and '9')\n\nThese are 32-byte, so have no reason IMO to follow the 20-byte proposal.\nSince a lot of services are already using version 128 ('5') for bitcoin \nprivate keys, and 128 is \"reserved\" in the 20-byte proposal, I think it's fair \nto leave it alone (for now).",
"sig": "385f076ae36cc1e885980293aa19abb059c7189620fb01fa1e499fcb8d9a7a7d6d3d3678a34b876e42675ffa0dee51ee062c8811d4f690efd818e4600596ae18"
}