š
Original date posted:2011-12-13
šļø Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen suggests experimenting with clients supporting different schemes for Bitcoin address aliases and supporting plugins to extend the schemes supported. Defining Bitcoin as an IIBAN "institution" seems like a forward-thinking idea.
š Original message:RE: IIBAN numbers:
Nifty! Thanks for the pointers, I think we should avoid reinventing
wheels whenever possible.
When composing my last response in this thread I wrote, and then erased:
"There doesn't have to be one solution: I'd like to see some
experimentation, with clients supporting different schemes for bitcoin
address aliases, and maybe supporting plugins to extend the schemes
supported (a plugin would take a string, do some
behind-the-scenes-magic, and return a bitcoin address or public key)."
Defining Bitcoin as an IIBAN "institution", with 36^6 "accounts",
seems like a forward-thinking idea, although I'm not clear on exactly
how those 2.2billion "accounts" would get allocated and mapped into
bitcoin addresses.
I imagine some central organization that maps IIBAN account numbers to
domain names... and then clients (or plugins in the clients) query
that trusted central organization and then the account holder's domain
to get a (possibly unique) public key or bitcoin address.
As long as IIBANs are not the ONLY way of aliasing bitcoin addresses
to more-human-friendly strings I think that would be a fine way to do
it.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4ā¦d44kw
2023-06-07 02:48:36
in reply to nevent1qā¦29fa
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 02:48:36Event JSON
{
"id": "86a898e22d0bf702f673670d7a8fe68b26ec829d3a95148032a7368750859708",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686106116,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f45e7ca88e6eb3dd1e645e8e3cbb476c5b24e8003cb71eebe205594bb2a4d152",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3f980c80fe910b50a8a99bd8c64b928081761036b510911ffc9e6c9a0a3fc554",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2011-12-13\nšļø Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen suggests experimenting with clients supporting different schemes for Bitcoin address aliases and supporting plugins to extend the schemes supported. Defining Bitcoin as an IIBAN \"institution\" seems like a forward-thinking idea.\nš Original message:RE: IIBAN numbers:\n\nNifty! Thanks for the pointers, I think we should avoid reinventing\nwheels whenever possible.\n\nWhen composing my last response in this thread I wrote, and then erased:\n\n\"There doesn't have to be one solution: I'd like to see some\nexperimentation, with clients supporting different schemes for bitcoin\naddress aliases, and maybe supporting plugins to extend the schemes\nsupported (a plugin would take a string, do some\nbehind-the-scenes-magic, and return a bitcoin address or public key).\"\n\nDefining Bitcoin as an IIBAN \"institution\", with 36^6 \"accounts\",\nseems like a forward-thinking idea, although I'm not clear on exactly\nhow those 2.2billion \"accounts\" would get allocated and mapped into\nbitcoin addresses.\n\nI imagine some central organization that maps IIBAN account numbers to\ndomain names... and then clients (or plugins in the clients) query\nthat trusted central organization and then the account holder's domain\nto get a (possibly unique) public key or bitcoin address.\n\nAs long as IIBANs are not the ONLY way of aliasing bitcoin addresses\nto more-human-friendly strings I think that would be a fine way to do\nit.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen",
"sig": "83a4f7b13a3a605ff722199b90c5e717347160647ba4ddb6dab25d60affd98b08f97dfd07943edebfef859c85f83f87b0789a845ad3348fe222bd0c47f879251"
}