Talk:List of address prefixes - Revision history

Object In Space: /* BIP 0173 */ new section

2017-10-30T07:59:24Z

BIP 0173: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:59, 30 October 2017
Line 17:		Line 17:
	It seems odd that keys (HD and WIF) are listed in a table of "address prefixes".		It seems odd that keys (HD and WIF) are listed in a table of "address prefixes".
	--[[User:evoskuil\|evoskuil]] 28 September 2015		--[[User:evoskuil\|evoskuil]] 28 September 2015

			== [[BIP 0173]] ==

			This page and [[Address]] need to be updated to account for [[BIP 0173]] and [[Segregated Witness]].

Evoskuil: talk: keys vs. address prefixes

2015-09-28T20:26:39Z

talk: keys vs. address prefixes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 28 September 2015
Line 14:		Line 14:
	** CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		** CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	*** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		*** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

			It seems odd that keys (HD and WIF) are listed in a table of "address prefixes".
			--[[User:evoskuil\|evoskuil]] 28 September 2015

Luke-jr at 17:58, 20 July 2014

2014-07-20T17:58:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 20 July 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:

	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
			** CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		*** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Luke-jr at 17:58, 20 July 2014

2014-07-20T17:58:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 20 July 2014
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
			** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gidgreen at 06:29, 20 July 2014

2014-07-20T06:29:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:29, 20 July 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

	:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [~~CoinSpark addresses~~ http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gidgreen at 06:28, 20 July 2014

2014-07-20T06:28:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 20 July 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

	:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [CoinSpark addresses http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes?		:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [CoinSpark addresses http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Gidgreen at 06:27, 20 July 2014

2014-07-20T06:27:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 20 July 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:

	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

			:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [CoinSpark addresses http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes?

Luke-jr at 20:47, 7 July 2014

2014-07-07T20:47:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 7 July 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:
	--[[User:gidgreen\|gidgreen]] 7 July 2014 (GMT)		--[[User:gidgreen\|gidgreen]] 7 July 2014 (GMT)

	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Luke-jr at 20:45, 7 July 2014

2014-07-07T20:45:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 7 July 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:
	--[[User:gidgreen\|gidgreen]] 7 July 2014 (GMT)		--[[User:gidgreen\|gidgreen]] 7 July 2014 (GMT)

	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Luke-jr at 20:44, 7 July 2014

2014-07-07T20:44:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:44, 7 July 2014
Line 11:		Line 11:
	--[[User:gidgreen\|gidgreen]] 7 July 2014 (GMT)		--[[User:gidgreen\|gidgreen]] 7 July 2014 (GMT)

	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 20 July 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:

	* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)		* I'm not sure what you mean by that. Altcoins abusing bitcoin's blockchain are still altcoins. Also note that the version byte is for a version, not a namespace. CoinSpark seems to be inserting a "features" in the address. It makes sense to have this, I think, but it should be based on version 5 addresses (p2sh), not the obsolete version 0 (p2pkh)... Perhaps more importantly, this should be proposed on the development mailing list and made a BIP before appearing on this page. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 20:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
			** CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	:: CoinSpark is not an altcoin. It's a protocol for enriching bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURNs. Of the 5 features on the current roadmap, one is a variant on the idea of colored coins (I don't know if you would call that an altcoin or not) but the rest are all about making regular bitcoin transactions easier and more useful. I imagine it will be one of many such protocols which come out during the coming years, and I think there is sense in avoiding addressing clashes between these different protocols. As you say, [http://coinspark.org/developers/coinspark-addresses/ CoinSpark addresses] encode several types of information but this is not really appropriate for a BIP since it's not an enhancement to the bitcoin protocol itself. (Think TCP/IP and the Web.) So what mechanism would you suggest for avoiding addressing clashes? [[User:Gidgreen\|Gidgreen]] ([[User talk:Gidgreen\|talk]]) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)		*** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
	** If it's not Bitcoin, it doesn't belong on the Bitcoin Wiki or in the Bitcoin blockchain. If it is Bitcoin, then a BIP is appropriate. BIPs are for any Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, not just select parts of the system. --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)