Author: Melvin Carvalho 2013-06-15 09:50:30
Published on: 2013-06-15T09:50:30+00:00
The discussion thread begins with Melvin Carvalho's statement on the definition of opaque. Luke-Jr notes that whether it is true or false depends on the context. He further explains that implementations of transaction handling need to translate addresses, whereas things like URI handlers should not try to interpret the address as anything other than an arbitrary word. Melvin raises a concern that if Bitcoin addresses are indeed opaque, it would invalidate some wiki pages. In response, Luke-Jr explains that the wiki provides detailed information on how addresses work, but it's not relevant to most software in the ecosystem. He says that the information may be of interest to humans and developers working on the component that operates the "black box" that addresses are.Luke-Jr clarifies that he had mentioned on IRC that Bitcoin might change from the base58 encoding for addresses at some unspecified time in the future, to some unspecified new encoding that addressed known limitations of base58. The only currently planned change to addresses is inclusion of Payment Protocol URIs. However, software developers shouldn't assume that addresses will remain base58 forever. In the end, Luke-Jr responds to Melvin's query about investing in vanity addresses and doesn't provide a clear answer.
Updated on: 2023-06-06T18:49:46.062496+00:00