Talk:List of address prefixes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 20:45, 7 July 2014
Shouldn't the line 128 5 Bitcoin Private key 5Htn3FzuH3b1X5VF2zLTsAQzBcyzkZNJsa2egXN8ZFJTCqQm3Rq be 128 t Bitcoin Private key tHtn3FzuH3b1X5VF2zLTsAQzBcyzkZNJsa2egXN8ZFJTCqQm3Rq according to 127-128 t 34 ? --ThePiachu (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (GMT)
What is the policy regarding addresses which are not altcoins but which relate to protocols being built on top of bitcoin? I think there is value in some kind of registry for such protocols to prevent address clashes, and help users know the purpose of different addresses. But I don't want to overstep if that's not the purpose of this page. --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)... --Luke-jr (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)