📅 Original date posted:2013-05-20
📝 Original message:On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io> wrote:
> So as to remain reasonably compliant with RFC 4122, I recommend that we
> use Version 4 (random) UUIDs, with the random bits extracted from the
> double-SHA256 hash of the genesis block of the chain. (For colored
> coins, the colored coin definition transaction would be used instead,
> but I will address that in a separate proposal and will say just one
> thing about it: adopting this method for identifying chains/coins will
> greatly assist in adopting the payment protocol to colored coins.)
This proposal seems closer to Version 5 than Version 4, in spirit.
But given that useful content may be deduced from UUID, it is not
truly applicable to either. A bitcoin-specific version 6, if you
will.
> And some example chain identifiers:
>
> mainnet: UUID('6fe28c0a-b6f1-4372-81a6-a246ae63f74f')
> testnet3: UUID('43497fd7-f826-4571-88f4-a30fd9cec3ae')
> namecoin: UUID('70c7a9f0-a2fb-4d48-a635-a70d5b157c80')
Note that, as this example unintentionally implies, humans are going
to want a side-by-side mapping /anyway/, just to make it readable and
usable to humans.
Almost all useful multi-chain software will require a readable
shortname string anyway, the thing this proposal wishes to avoid.
--
Jeff Garzik
exMULTI, Inc.
jgarzik at exmulti.com
Jeff Garzik [ARCHIVE] /
npub1kf…f3f58
2023-06-07 15:02:09
in reply to nevent1q…ynn2
Author Public Key
npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58Published at
2023-06-07 15:02:09Event JSON
{
"id": "e75b53b9886decbd88b1a3a6ca9714be6229c508c38107e2d211d25fe2dc796d",
"pubkey": "b25e10e25d470d9b215521b50da0dfe7a209bec7fedeb53860c3e180ffdc8c11",
"created_at": 1686150129,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f48f714526d322379c9590ee7300f610f029d3880329fd3820bde032fc049d84",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"65d7fc8c2d9771448c98d18b8f329b70be1fef46e5e6a0df85eddf1210d5775f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-05-20\n📝 Original message:On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at monetize.io\u003e wrote:\n\u003e So as to remain reasonably compliant with RFC 4122, I recommend that we\n\u003e use Version 4 (random) UUIDs, with the random bits extracted from the\n\u003e double-SHA256 hash of the genesis block of the chain. (For colored\n\u003e coins, the colored coin definition transaction would be used instead,\n\u003e but I will address that in a separate proposal and will say just one\n\u003e thing about it: adopting this method for identifying chains/coins will\n\u003e greatly assist in adopting the payment protocol to colored coins.)\n\nThis proposal seems closer to Version 5 than Version 4, in spirit.\nBut given that useful content may be deduced from UUID, it is not\ntruly applicable to either. A bitcoin-specific version 6, if you\nwill.\n\n\n\u003e And some example chain identifiers:\n\u003e\n\u003e mainnet: UUID('6fe28c0a-b6f1-4372-81a6-a246ae63f74f')\n\u003e testnet3: UUID('43497fd7-f826-4571-88f4-a30fd9cec3ae')\n\u003e namecoin: UUID('70c7a9f0-a2fb-4d48-a635-a70d5b157c80')\n\nNote that, as this example unintentionally implies, humans are going\nto want a side-by-side mapping /anyway/, just to make it readable and\nusable to humans.\n\nAlmost all useful multi-chain software will require a readable\nshortname string anyway, the thing this proposal wishes to avoid.\n\n-- \nJeff Garzik\nexMULTI, Inc.\njgarzik at exmulti.com",
"sig": "800cad5c17d65efa2a6e0b72865e83dc8d6ded8092b69dafc32052d648b8519855655929acce0e50742057ea0210bae22d640ecdfb13a9d083f5c2d9a8a7aa31"
}