11 Jan
2014
11 Jan
'14
11:01 p.m.
Base58 presumably included the "not mangleable by intermediate servers that only speak ascii" design constraint. Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote: >Bitcoin base58 seemed a to have some minor unfortunate side effects to >me, >the intent is good to avoid transcription error, but surely one could >find >64-chars. it could have easily been base 60 to start with (dont delete >both >0 and O, and 1 and l just make the equivalent!). Then you have URL >encoding >ambiguity, C/python/bash programming string quoting that rules out some >more >non alphanum chars. (base 64 includes +/). Just seems some ugly code >mess >and implications for vanity address etc to deal with non-power-of-2 >encoding. > >Adam > >On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:58:48AM +0100, stef wrote: >>> > 1l0$WoM5C8z=yeZG7?$]f^Uu8.g>4rf#t^6mfW9(rr910 >>> one of several possible text encodings >>> Others might include: >>> - base 29 >>> - base 59 >>> - base 4096 (for UTF8 channels) >> >>i like base85. ;) >> >>diversity! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.