Published on: 2013-06-22T11:48:08+00:00
In a discussion on June 11, 2013, the nature of opaque addresses in Bitcoin was debated. Luke-Jr argued that whether an address is opaque or not depends on the context. He explained that transaction handling needs to be able to translate addresses, but URI handlers should not try to interpret them beyond their arbitrary word representation. Melvin Carvalho expressed concern about bitcoin being treated as a relative URL and emphasized the need for compatibility with other URI schemes.Luke-Jr clarified that while the wiki's explanations of how addresses work may not be relevant to most software in the Bitcoin ecosystem, they are of interest to developers working on components that interact with addresses. He mentioned that the base58 encoding for addresses is likely to change in the future to address known limitations and that the inclusion of Payment Protocol URIs is the only currently planned change. However, Luke-Jr opposed address changes until their wider implications are fully understood.The discussion thread began with Melvin Carvalho questioning the definition of opaque. Luke-Jr explained that whether an address is opaque or not depends on the context. He further stated that transaction handling implementations need to translate addresses, whereas URI handlers should not interpret the address beyond its arbitrary word representation. Melvin raised concerns about the validity of certain wiki pages if Bitcoin addresses are considered opaque. Luke-Jr clarified that the wiki provides detailed information on how addresses work, but it may not be relevant to most software in the ecosystem. He emphasized that it could be of interest to developers working on components that operate with addresses.Luke-Jr mentioned in an IRC conversation that the base58 encoding for Bitcoin addresses may change in the future to address known limitations. The only planned change at that time was the inclusion of Payment Protocol URIs. However, he cautioned software developers against assuming that addresses would remain base58 forever. In response to Melvin's query about investing in vanity addresses, Luke-Jr did not provide a clear answer.The conversation between Melvin Carvalho and Luke revolved around the meaning of "opaque" in the context of Bitcoin addresses. While Melvin argued that opaque means not being able to determine anything about the address from its characters, Luke explained that the transparency of addresses depends on their interpretation. He suggested that transaction handling software should translate addresses, but URI handlers should not interpret them beyond arbitrary words. They also discussed the accuracy of certain wiki pages related to Bitcoin addresses, with Luke noting that while the information provided may be true at the moment, it is subject to revision by newer standards. Luke further mentioned the likelihood of a future change from base58 encoding for Bitcoin addresses to address limitations, but the exact changes and timeline were not established. The only planned change at that time was the inclusion of Payment Protocol URIs. Luke advised software developers not to assume that addresses would remain base58 forever.On June 11, 2013, there was a discussion on IRC regarding the opacity of Bitcoin addresses. Melvin Carvalho defined opaque as not being able to determine anything about an address by examining its characters. However, this led to a misunderstanding, as previous discussions on IRC had argued that addresses should be considered opaque for the purposes of URI parsing and handling. Luke-Jr clarified that while addresses have well-defined specifications, keeping them independent from URIs allows for the possibility of changes in the address format without breaking or concerning URI handling code. It was emphasized that these two concerns should be dealt with separately.The debate on IRC centered around whether bitcoin addresses can be considered opaque or not. The term 'opaque' refers to not being able to determine anything about the address by examining its characters. From a human perspective, bitcoin addresses appear to be opaque since they don't reveal any specific information, such as geographical location or personal identity. However, from a code perspective, they do have a meaning, as they are composed of an "address type + hashed public key, base58 encoded." Nonetheless, it can still be argued that the value remains highly opaque. There was also a discussion regarding a possible change in base58 encoding for bitcoin addresses, but it was clarified that no changes had been made and the encoding remained the same as before. It was noted that Satoshi coined the term 'base58' and the encoding has not been altered.In the IRC conversation, there was confusion about whether bitcoin addresses are considered opaque. The term 'opaque' implies that examining the characters of an address reveals no information about it. However, the wiki page on bitcoin addresses provides information suggesting that they are not opaque, which could invalidate certain statements on the page. These include details about the length and composition of addresses, the process of creating them, the probability of mistyping, and the use of checksums. Furthermore, there may be a potential change in the base58 encoding for bitcoin addresses, highlighting the need to clarify the definition of an address and update the wiki accordingly to reflect any changes.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T05:08:47.129943+00:00