<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 June 2013 17:29, Luke-Jr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org" target="_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:11:33 PM Melvin Carvalho wrote:<br>
> For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell<br>
> nothing about the address by examining the characters.<br>
<br>
</div>This is true or false based on CONTEXT.<br>
<br>
Obviously, an implementation of transaction handling (eg, wallets) needs to be<br>
able to translate addresses to and from what they represent.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, things like URI handlers do not (and should not) try to<br>
interpret the address as anything other than an arbitrary word (\w+).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this statement may need to be justified.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has<br>
> changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples at<br>
> least some of the following would now be false:<br>
<br>
</div>The wiki goes into much detail on how addresses work, which is not the concern<br>
of most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but may be of interest to humans<br>
and developers working on the one component that operates the "black box" that<br>
addresses are.<br>
<br>
> --------<br>
> <snip><br>
> --------<br>
<br>
These aren't FALSE, they are "true at the moment, but subject to revision by<br>
newer standards".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Got it.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
> I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ... when<br>
> was this established?<br>
<br>
</div>I stated (on IRC) that it was likely Bitcoin would change from the base58<br>
encoding for addresses ... at some unspecified time in the future, to some<br>
unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. What<br>
those changes will be, or when, are not all established at this time. The only<br>
currently-planned change to addresses (very loosely defined) is inclusion of<br>
the Payment Protocol URIs. But the point is that software developers shouldn't<br>
assume that addresses will remain base58 forever.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Does this mean that people should not be investing in "vanity addresses"?<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Luke<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>