Why does anyone care what an address looks like?
If the user is seeing an address, that's a usability fail right there. It's
common today because AFAIK nobody finished off the URL handling support in
the main client for browser integration. It'd be a much better use of time
to finish off that
I was in brmlab and wanted to pay 1 BTC for a Club Mate. They had on the
wall a picture of their QR code and a bitcoin address. I don't own a mobile
phone so the QR code is
useless.
Fixed addresses like that are a temporary thing during Bitcoins maturation
period. They lead to merchants
All,
I fully agree with Mike Hearn on this. Like email addresses, bank numbers,
phone numbers, IPv4/v6 addresses and such the bitcoin address is just an
opaque identifier for machines to be able to send each other messages.
Base58 was chosen not for human readability but to make it easy to
Base58 was chosen not for human readability but to make it easy to
copy/paste.
It was also chosen for hand-writeability, weirdly enough. That's why it
excludes some confusible characters. But Satoshi didn't really understand
how people would end up using Bitcoin, he originally imagined most
I agree with Mike Hearn and Christian Decker-- paying to
'someb...@foo.com' should become, behind the scenes, a HTTPS query to
https://foo.com/something. If you just want to (say) donate to
eff.org, then paying to '@eff.org' aught to work nicely.
And if namecoin ever takes off you'll pay to
On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:06:15 AM Gavin Andresen wrote:
I agree with Mike Hearn and Christian Decker-- paying to
'someb...@foo.com' should become, behind the scenes, a HTTPS query to
https://foo.com/something. If you just want to (say) donate to
eff.org, then paying to '@eff.org' aught
Interesting thread.
Given the following paragraph and the limited feedback garnered upon
its announcement to this list last month, I couldn't help but chime in
again to mention IIBAN, an Internet Standards Draft available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iiban-00 (A related proposal for
(6) Settlement system neutral - ie: not bitcoin-centric.
...
Also, a single address could be paid via multiple channels
(conventional financial systems, bitcoin, LETS systems, etc.)
resulting in greater ease of uptake and higher user confidence over
time since published banking information is
On 2011 December 13 Tuesday, Amir Taaki wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the document, but this is the intent with
the HTTPS proposal.
I don't like the idea of a hard-coded mapping at all. We shouldn't be making
choices on behalf of server operators. It's up to them how they arrange
Nifty! Thanks for the pointers, I think we should avoid reinventing
wheels whenever possible.
Hear hear!
When composing my last response in this thread I wrote, and then erased:
There doesn't have to be one solution: I'd like to see some
experimentation, with clients supporting different
10 matches
Mail list logo
