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!