On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone, > > You can find the text here: > https://github.com/sipa/bech32/blob/master/bip-witaddr.mediawiki > Responding to a few comments: By Andreas Schildbach: > I'm not convinced that transmitting addresses via voice should be a usecase to target at I think it should be. It's certainly not the most important way through which addresses are communicated or verified, but I am trying to address all places where humans interact with addresses. I have certainly tried to verify addresses a few times through voice, when dealing with significant amounts. Regarding your QR code comments: it is certainly possible to find a more compact QR code representation. That is not the goal of the BIP though - it's trying to introduce one commonly recognizable format that has good properties for all use cases, even if that means being suboptimal in certain aspects for some. > I don't understand your comment about non-english speaking users. Obviously they cannot voice-communicate at all with only-english-speaking users, so there is no need to communicate voice-communicate addresses between them. I assume that Peter Todd is talking about cases where English speakers are interacting with non-native English speakers, who may know how to pronounce numbers or alphabetical characters, but not all special characters. > Speaking of URLs, actually Base 32 (as well as Base 43) makes QR codes *bigger* because due to the characters used for URL parameters (?&=) those QR codes are locked to binary mode. I believe that is incorrect. Data in QR codes can switch from one mode to another on a per-character basis (with an overhead of a few bits). I don't know to what extent common QR encoders make intelligent decisions about this, but it does not seem very hard. By Lucas Ontivero: > Here I think it could worth to mention that 58 requires mathematical operations over big numbers. This is not very fast and most of the programming languages don't provide support for big numbers OOB. It's not that hard to emulate the bignum logic in languages that don't support it. See for example this code in Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.14.1/src/base58.cpp#L37L53. So I think it's not necessary to go into all the possible ways Base58 can be implemented in the document, and the existing language ("Base58 decoding is complicated and relatively slow.") is sufficient. > I understand that if a new generic encoding format is introduced that could lead to some confusions but what if in the future there is a new type of address that can also be encoded with bech32? Don't we need a address type anyway? I believe that it's likely that new types of outputs that may be introduced in the future will most likely not be a simple constant byte sequence that can be computed directly from addresses, but need some processing by the sender. This is the case for example for Reusable/Stealth addresses and Confidential Transactions addresses. Such outputs, if ever introduced on a wide scale, should ideally not be representable as existing address types, as that could not only lead to confusion, but also to lost privacy and funds. And, If there ever is a need for introducing a "constant scriptPubKey" type address again, the encoding proposed in this document can be reused. Currently, the header value can be at most 17. In the future new proposals could give a meaning to values 18 through 31. In general: In the past weeks people have contributed two new reference implementations (Haskell and Rust), and a C++ and Go one are underway (see https://github.com/sipa/bech32). I'd like to move forward and request a BIP number assignment for this proposal. Cheers, -- Pieter
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
