News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree. Parent comment

Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree by kobeya on Thursday August 31, 2017 @04:20AM (#15138943)
Even people working on bitcoin aren't fans of base58. Variable length serialization? Bignums in the serializer? Poor error detection? No error correction? Confused characters in alphabet? Case sensitivity? Lots of reasons to dislike.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree by gruez on Thursday August 31, 2017 @09:23AM (#15140075)
>Poor error detection? No error correction?

It's implemented at a higher level. For bitcoin, a 32 bit check field is appended to the data to serve as a checksum. If you want parity, I'd imagine that could be done as well.

>Confused characters in alphabet? Case sensitivity?

Some look alike letters are excluded, hence why base58 rather than base62.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree by ChrisClark on Thursday August 31, 2017 @12:19PM (#15141361)
> Confused characters in alphabet?

That's really the only reason I was saying I liked base58. Because it removes those confusing characters compared to base64 or others.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin's Academic Pedigree by kobeya on Thursday August 31, 2017 @09:19PM (#15145417)
Ah, but it doesn't do a very good job of that. It only removed a few pairings, and made some odd choices at that. Hence why I list it as one of the issues.
[ Parent | on HN ]