đź“… Original date posted:2012-02-20
đź“ť Original message:Just posted this on the wiki BIP-13 discussion - should I make it into a BIP of its own ?
---
The "version" portion of the address has so far been labeled "network id", and indicates from which network and which chain the address can be used for. I think that this change from network id to version is much more fundamental and should not just be squeezed in along with bip16/17. The right way to do this is to structure the bitcoin address into:
base58-encode: [one-byte network ID][20-byte hash][one-byte address class][3-byte checksum]
This will move the possibility of using a faulty address from 1 to 4bill to 1 to 24mio. Recall that for most other payment systems this checksum is 1 to 9! So it should be sufficient. An old client will then render the new addresses as useless and they will still maintain their old familiar 1xxx look - the whole point in multisig is that it should not be a matter of the paying party to worry about securing wallet of the receiver, hence he should not be bothered with a new "3" kind of address now... --Michael Gronager/libcoin 10:49, 20 February 2012 (GMT)
Michael Grønager [ARCHIVE] /
npub15f…xlq6h
2023-06-07 03:08:12
in reply to nevent1q…t060
Author Public Key
npub15fmnxm546tg2sv0l7elusrvqsgezdzdg3m0flpml5fr2qf3f5slskxlq6hPublished at
2023-06-07 03:08:12Event JSON
{
"id": "c76df127c417946464be2c3052de3633b0993022e4235b3af21b569d0456052f",
"pubkey": "a277336e95d2d0a831fff67fc80d8082322689a88ede9f877fa246a02629a43f",
"created_at": 1686107292,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"02827371c6a4dadf4370012ad20068cb130d335969263f3423ec10b269e811dc",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "đź“… Original date posted:2012-02-20\nđź“ť Original message:Just posted this on the wiki BIP-13 discussion - should I make it into a BIP of its own ?\n\n---\nThe \"version\" portion of the address has so far been labeled \"network id\", and indicates from which network and which chain the address can be used for. I think that this change from network id to version is much more fundamental and should not just be squeezed in along with bip16/17. The right way to do this is to structure the bitcoin address into:\n\nbase58-encode: [one-byte network ID][20-byte hash][one-byte address class][3-byte checksum]\n\nThis will move the possibility of using a faulty address from 1 to 4bill to 1 to 24mio. Recall that for most other payment systems this checksum is 1 to 9! So it should be sufficient. An old client will then render the new addresses as useless and they will still maintain their old familiar 1xxx look - the whole point in multisig is that it should not be a matter of the paying party to worry about securing wallet of the receiver, hence he should not be bothered with a new \"3\" kind of address now... --Michael Gronager/libcoin 10:49, 20 February 2012 (GMT)",
"sig": "3a99a28fef4ffe1ee812a98e85586e43ffdb5e37408592a34620b27bc38dc0ced2d249c66a9df95ab929b50673a84a2c98672b70d788dd3ae45be5c339199125"
}