I'm confused, it seems you're implementing BIP 142, which was withdrawn. There is currently no proposed (AFAIK) address format for P2WSH/P2WPKH scripts, though there is a ton of ongoing work in building a TON better address format for it.
On November 9, 2016 7:25:55 AM PST, Andreas Schildbach <[email protected]> wrote: >(this is a followup to >https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/issues/1312) > >Great to hear you're working on segwit! It's much appreciated. > >I would first invest some time to decide if a segwit address is >actually >similar enough to a regular Bitcoin address to be implemented with the >same class. In theory, it could also be another subclass of >VersionedChecksummedBytes. > >If your decision is you want a shared implementation for both types of >addresses (and your code seems to proove this), then I agree the >constant needs to go sooner or later. I would not worry too much about >backwards compatibility here, but marking it deprecated seems fine to >me >for now too. > > >On 11/09/2016 03:28 PM, Jean-Pierre Rupp wrote: >> I have been working on segwit addresses on my fork of this code. I >> noticed that the |Address| class has a static property |LENGTH| that >is >> set to 20. In order to work properly with segwit, the |LENGTH| >property >> has to be set individually per address instance, or not at all. I for >> now left it at 20 and marked it |@Deprecated|. I would like to know >if >> the property should instead be removed, even if it breaks backwards >> compatibility. My code is here >> <https://github.com/xenog/bitcoinj/tree/segwit>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
