<div dir="ltr">This has been a problem that has been in discussion for quite some time. See for instance: <br><div><a href="https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/issues/35" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/issues/35</a><br><br>Maybe
we have been moving too slowly and that is why Bitpay has gone ahead
but I think they should have talked to developers or wallets. Upgrading addresses is disruptive and we should therefore do it as few times as possible and in the best way possible. <br><br>At
this point, I am in favor of the BECH32 style addresses as they have a
number of advantages. The most notable one, is that the format can be extended to support new features in the future. The current address format, or the variation proposed by Bitpay doesn't, which means we'll likely have to change it again in the future.<br><br></div><div>As a result, I think we should adopt an extensible address format rather than doing a quick fix that makes us feel better now but fails to anticipates needs down the road. We are in this for the long run - at least I am - so let's act accordingly.<br></div><div><br>Dagurval and myself have been working on the problem and it's making good progress. The main I would able
to produce a spec for what I recommend in the next 3-6 weeks. It is my
hope that wallet providers and exchanges can wait for this and not rush
to implement the Bitpay changes.</div></div>