📅 Original date posted:2013-06-22
📝 Original message:On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> > For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell
> > nothing about the address by examining the characters.
>
> This is true or false based on CONTEXT.
>
> Obviously, an implementation of transaction handling (eg, wallets) needs
> to be
> able to translate addresses to and from what they represent.
>
> On the other hand, things like URI handlers do not (and should not) try to
> interpret the address as anything other than an arbitrary word (\w+).
>
Luke, if you think that the sole purpose of a URI scheme is to be used as a
URI handler, I think you've not fully understood the concept. URIs are the
global variable of the internet, and as such the need to play nicely with
all other URI schemes on the net. They need to be able to be linked to, to
be defined and documented. This is important for bitcoin to get right
because bitcoin: needs to treated in a special way on the internet, I just
saw today that it was treated by some software as a relative URL, which is
going to break a ton of stuff.
>
> > My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has
> > changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples at
> > least some of the following would now be false:
>
> The wiki goes into much detail on how addresses work, which is not the
> concern
> of most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but may be of interest to humans
> and developers working on the one component that operates the "black box"
> that
> addresses are.
>
> > --------
> > <snip>
> > --------
>
> These aren't FALSE, they are "true at the moment, but subject to revision
> by
> newer standards".
>
> > I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ...
> when
> > was this established?
>
> I stated (on IRC) that it was likely Bitcoin would change from the base58
> encoding for addresses ... at some unspecified time in the future, to some
> unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. What
> those changes will be, or when, are not all established at this time. The
> only
> currently-planned change to addresses (very loosely defined) is inclusion
> of
> the Payment Protocol URIs. But the point is that software developers
> shouldn't
> assume that addresses will remain base58 forever.
>
I am opposed to address changes in general, until he wider implications are
fully understood.
>
> Luke
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130622/d05ef409/attachment.html>;
Melvin Carvalho [ARCHIVE] /
npub1uv…saxrt
2023-06-07 15:03:19
in reply to nevent1q…yu9t
Author Public Key
npub1uvtfvcegcn9kds68r8he57emc480vqtx8t22kpsctxgjxae44gvsksaxrtPublished at
2023-06-07 15:03:19Event JSON
{
"id": "0f45b22202156aabc63406b27cc657d3da6e67faa6341b5e0ae78f6c665c9a87",
"pubkey": "e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19",
"created_at": 1686150199,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"00f0cd0ec6462b49a3551d696bff351453e496031b95df7ebfa12b2f9e5efaae",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f3d6254b9d501298187eeed3d64f130614be7555250b4d39ac03843e4fa454b0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"e316966328c4cb66c34719ef9a7b3bc54ef601663ad4ab06185991237735aa19"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-06-22\n📝 Original message:On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrote:\n\u003e \u003e For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell\n\u003e \u003e nothing about the address by examining the characters.\n\u003e\n\u003e This is true or false based on CONTEXT.\n\u003e\n\u003e Obviously, an implementation of transaction handling (eg, wallets) needs\n\u003e to be\n\u003e able to translate addresses to and from what they represent.\n\u003e\n\u003e On the other hand, things like URI handlers do not (and should not) try to\n\u003e interpret the address as anything other than an arbitrary word (\\w+).\n\u003e\n\nLuke, if you think that the sole purpose of a URI scheme is to be used as a\nURI handler, I think you've not fully understood the concept. URIs are the\nglobal variable of the internet, and as such the need to play nicely with\nall other URI schemes on the net. They need to be able to be linked to, to\nbe defined and documented. This is important for bitcoin to get right\nbecause bitcoin: needs to treated in a special way on the internet, I just\nsaw today that it was treated by some software as a relative URL, which is\ngoing to break a ton of stuff.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has\n\u003e \u003e changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples at\n\u003e \u003e least some of the following would now be false:\n\u003e\n\u003e The wiki goes into much detail on how addresses work, which is not the\n\u003e concern\n\u003e of most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but may be of interest to humans\n\u003e and developers working on the one component that operates the \"black box\"\n\u003e that\n\u003e addresses are.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e --------\n\u003e \u003e \u003csnip\u003e\n\u003e \u003e --------\n\u003e\n\u003e These aren't FALSE, they are \"true at the moment, but subject to revision\n\u003e by\n\u003e newer standards\".\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ...\n\u003e when\n\u003e \u003e was this established?\n\u003e\n\u003e I stated (on IRC) that it was likely Bitcoin would change from the base58\n\u003e encoding for addresses ... at some unspecified time in the future, to some\n\u003e unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. What\n\u003e those changes will be, or when, are not all established at this time. The\n\u003e only\n\u003e currently-planned change to addresses (very loosely defined) is inclusion\n\u003e of\n\u003e the Payment Protocol URIs. But the point is that software developers\n\u003e shouldn't\n\u003e assume that addresses will remain base58 forever.\n\u003e\n\nI am opposed to address changes in general, until he wider implications are\nfully understood.\n\n\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130622/d05ef409/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8cd7a5cea1c77027669afc9c08bbbd722b81b71d7c6b78f1522189ae3461de042d193ad438953f02cf58088affcabc1ecbc9a18e7faa9e6e73a0534da9ec1ec1"
}