Out of curiosity: What other address formats are in development?
On 11/09/2016 07:42 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > I'm confused, it seems you're implementing BIP 142, which was withdrawn.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.
