[Bitcoin-ml] Proposed address format for bitcoin cash

[freetrader]

I'd like to better understand these arguments from you, Tom.

> not backwards compatible

How is this different than any other new address scheme?
The point is to break compatibility with the old addresses.

> and doesn’t have a migration strategy other than “rip and replace”

Isn't the wider ecosystem strategy to add new formats while applications and clients still support the old ones, optionally? Just like Bitpay has done with their converter, or the faucet site you linked.

Beyond that it is really up to application providers whether and how they want to roll such proposals out, and whether they want to continue supporting an old format. Bitpay at least has already indicated that their support for the old format would be temporary. I think we should take cognizance of that fact too.

Like you, I'm attracted to the simplicity of Bitpay's new addresses. But I think a good case has also been made for the benefits of the Bech32 address scheme.

> Pushing this through will have the direct effect that companies postpone solving this with the already available solution and so more and more people will actively lose funds sent to wrong addresses.

How is anyone pushing anything through? Maybe the market will decide that Bitpay's solution is needed and implement it. So far, it's the one out there with signs of adoption.

But having two proposals on the table, one for a simpler, quicker fix (Bitpay) and another more sophisticated solution (cashaddr) - I don't see it as an entirely bad thing, as long as we work on making them non-exclusive.

> Or, in short, pushing this instead of the solution we already have hurts Bitcoin Cash immensely.

I would prefer if we accepted both address schemes. One as a short term solution, the other for the longer run.

--

freetrader at tuta.io

GPG fingerprint: CC32 9A4F B0E4 1392 8295  05FE C07A 7C34 5E86 B06C



8. Nov 2017 10:10 by bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org:


> On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 00:43:48 CET Antony Zegers via bitcoin-ml 
> wrote:
>> I propose we change the testnet and regtest prefixes in the Cash
>> Address specification from "xbctest" and "xbcreg" to "bchtest" and
>> "bchreg" respectively.
>
> We already solved the address format issues months ago.
> What problem are you trying to solve?
>
> The bitcoin cash ecosystem is already adopting to version change to bip58 
> addreses.
>
> Here is a simple example (at the bottom of the following page) of a good 
> implementation that shows how the version change is actually fully backwards 
> compatible;
>
> https://learnbitcoin.cash/faucet
>
> Amaurys invention is not backwards compatible and doesn’t have a migration 
> strategy other than “rip and replace”, which is a horribly bad idea for the 
> one thing we use to communicate between buyer and seller in a distributed 
> system. How on earth do you think you can coordinate a rip and replace 
> strategy?
>
> Pushing this through will have the direct effect that companies postpone 
> solving this with the already available solution and so more and more people 
> will actively lose funds sent to wrong addresses.
>
> Or, in short, pushing this instead of the solution we already have hurts 
> Bitcoin Cash immensely.
> -- 
> Tom Zander
> Blog: > https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: > https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-ml mailing list
> bitcoin-ml at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ml
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-ml/attachments/20171108/bbf3a652/attachment-0001.html>