11 Jan
2014
11 Jan
'14
1:47 p.m.
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!