1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1UmOsQ-0001lO-NJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:44:46 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.46; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bk0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UmOsP-0002IG-O5
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:44:46 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id na10so3956097bkb.33
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.236.69 with SMTP id kj5mr2333891bkb.86.1370958279254;
Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.199.77 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKaEYhJ+v0NfbzVEDEUh69D-n_4=Nd544fsm0a++QwsqcS3RVw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKaEYhJ+v0NfbzVEDEUh69D-n_4=Nd544fsm0a++QwsqcS3RVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:44:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJAsmH_LVqV5qs5fPX8NSGyJtzOs6kyC7M27e8JdCLooEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3022369f3cd46704dee11966
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UmOsP-0002IG-O5
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin addresses -- opaque or not
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:44:46 -0000
--20cf3022369f3cd46704dee11966
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Melvin Carvalho
<melvincarvalho@gmail.com>wrote:
> There was some confusion on IRC as to whether bitcoin addresses are opaque
> or not.
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address
>
> For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell
> nothing about the address by examining the characters.
>
> My understanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has
> changed, it will invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples at
> least some of the following would now be false:
>
How do you define opaque? As far as humans are concerned the addresses are
opaque. They don't tell anything about your country or location, your bank,
your name, they don't even form some kind of hierarchy.
From the viewpoint of the code you could argue they have a meaning "address
type + hashed public key, base58 encoded" thus are not fully opaque. But
it's a long shot, as a hashed value is still very opaque.
> I also here that there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ...
> when was this established?
>
No, there have been no changes to base58. The encoding is still exactly the
same as when Satoshi coined it. Can you show an example of what you mean?
Wladimir
--20cf3022369f3cd46704dee11966
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Melvin Carvalho <span dir=3D"ltr">=
<<a href=3D"mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">melvincar=
valho@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>There was some confus=
ion on IRC as to whether bitcoin addresses are opaque or not.<br>
<br><a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address" target=3D"_blank">https:=
//en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address</a><br><br></div>
For the sake of argument let's say that opaque means that you can tell =
nothing about the address by examining the characters.<br><br></div>My unde=
rstanding was that they are NOT opaque, and that if that has changed, it wi=
ll invalidate much at least some wiki page, for examples at least some of t=
he following would now be false:<br>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>How do you define =
opaque? As far as humans are concerned the addresses are opaque. They don&#=
39;t tell anything about your country or location, your bank, your name, th=
ey don't even form some kind of hierarchy.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>From the viewpoint of the code you could ar=
gue they have a meaning "address type + hashed public key, base58 enco=
ded" thus are not fully opaque. But it's a long shot, as a hashed =
value is still very opaque.</div>
<div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-l=
eft-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>I also here th=
at there is a LIKELY change from the base58 encoding ... when was this esta=
blished? =C2=A0<br>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>No, there have bee=
n no changes to base58. The encoding is still exactly the same as when Sato=
shi coined it. Can you show an example of what you mean?</div><div style>
<br></div><div style>Wladimir</div><div style><br></div></div></div></div>
--20cf3022369f3cd46704dee11966--
|
