From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wk9Gx-00043r-1s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 09:45:19 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=wtogami@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wk9Gv-0003W7-Ub for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 09:45:19 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id z6so58740yhz.20 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.123.49 with SMTP id u37mr6456651yhh.34.1399974312483; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.58.77 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 23:45:12 -1000 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b68559720c804f944eb59 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (wtogami[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Wk9Gv-0003W7-Ub Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:45:19 -0000 --20cf301b68559720c804f944eb59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi folks, I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. We need to know if any existing tools would need to be modified to support this change to regtest. Do existing tools outside of pull tester expect regtest to have testnet addresses? If the quantity of tools that currently handle regtest is small then we can modify them to the new address versions. Warren Togami --20cf301b68559720c804f944eb59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi folks,

I propose changing all of the= address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer ident= ical to testnet.

For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or= R.

We need to know if any existing tools would ne= ed to be modified to support this change to regtest. =C2=A0Do existing tool= s outside of pull tester expect regtest to have testnet addresses? =C2=A0If= the quantity of tools that currently handle regtest is small then we can m= odify them to the new address versions.

Warren Togami

--20cf301b68559720c804f944eb59-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Wk9yr-0002Be-Gu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 10:30:41 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Wk9yq-00056j-H2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 10:30:41 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id o6so139159oag.3 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 03:30:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.219.167 with SMTP id pp7mr1491040obc.85.1399977035007; Tue, 13 May 2014 03:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 03:30:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:30:34 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IYHPXauK7HIiBd9uibqs4f8Jy6Y Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141ab82dd926404f9458d59 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1Wk9yq-00056j-H2 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:30:41 -0000 --089e0141ab82dd926404f9458d59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would also have to be changed. You didn't provide a rationale for this. What's the cost of having them be the same? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > Hi folks, > > I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be > unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes > For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. > > We need to know if any existing tools would need to be modified to support > this change to regtest. Do existing tools outside of pull tester expect > regtest to have testnet addresses? If the quantity of tools that currently > handle regtest is small then we can modify them to the new address versions. > > Warren Togami > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE > Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. > Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform > available > Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." > http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --089e0141ab82dd926404f9458d59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would als= o have to be changed.

You didn't provide a rationale= for this. What's the cost of having them be the same?


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren= Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,

I propose changing all of the= address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer ident= ical to testnet.

For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or= R.

We need to know if any existing tools would ne= ed to be modified to support this change to regtest. =C2=A0Do existing tool= s outside of pull tester expect regtest to have testnet addresses? =C2=A0If= the quantity of tools that currently handle regtest is small then we can m= odify them to the new address versions.

Warren Togami


-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE=
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform availa= ble
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net= /sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--089e0141ab82dd926404f9458d59-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WkAU1-0007TC-1g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:02:53 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.51; envelope-from=wtogami@gmail.com; helo=mail-yh0-f51.google.com; Received: from mail-yh0-f51.google.com ([209.85.213.51]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WkAU0-00064A-1k for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:02:53 +0000 Received: by mail-yh0-f51.google.com with SMTP id f73so114227yha.24 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:02:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.15.102 with SMTP id e66mr50124250yhe.69.1399978966575; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.58.77 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:02:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 01:02:46 -1000 Message-ID: From: "Warren Togami Jr." To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (wtogami[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WkAU0-00064A-1k Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:02:53 -0000 --089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 bitcore guesses the network from the address version in several places in its code. They don't want to change that. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for them to use. I thought it might be simple to change the address version since its still relatively new and it isn't a real network. Would it be too much work to change? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would also have to be > changed. > > You didn't provide a rationale for this. What's the cost of having them be > the same? > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be >> unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. >> >> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes >> For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. >> >> We need to know if any existing tools would need to be modified to >> support this change to regtest. Do existing tools outside of pull tester >> expect regtest to have testnet addresses? If the quantity of tools that >> currently handle regtest is small then we can modify them to the new >> address versions. >> >> Warren Togami >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE >> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. >> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform >> available >> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > --089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
bitcore guesses the network from the address version in se= veral places in its code. =C2=A0They don't want to change that. =C2=A0P= erhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for them to use. =C2=A0I thought i= t might be simple to change the address version since its still relatively = new and it isn't a real network. =C2=A0Would it be too much work to cha= nge?


On Tue, May 1= 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would als= o have to be changed.

You didn't provide a rationale= for this. What's the cost of having them be the same?


On Tue, May 13, 2= 014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wrote= :
Hi folks,

I propose changing all of the= address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer ident= ical to testnet.

For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or= R.

We need to know if any existing tools would ne= ed to be modified to support this change to regtest. =C2=A0Do existing tool= s outside of pull tester expect regtest to have testnet addresses? =C2=A0If= the quantity of tools that currently handle regtest is small then we can m= odify them to the new address versions.

Warren Togami


-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE=
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform availa= ble
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net= /sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment



--089e0122a3d4feee3004f94600cf-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WkAt9-0004Ps-F7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:28:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WkAt8-0006wE-6N for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 13 May 2014 11:28:51 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id l6so202191oag.32 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.229.101 with SMTP id sp5mr21873736obc.52.1399980524609; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 04:28:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 13:28:44 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: mQ69QFD-K8aYYB_ZOenFaIr9uF8 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: "Warren Togami Jr." Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WkAt8-0006wE-6N Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:28:51 -0000 --001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 And they can't just do NetworkParams.TESTNET = NetworkParams.REGTEST at the start of a program that is connecting to regtest? It's not like changing the address code is a huge problem or anything, but it would disrupt a bunch of people and seems kind of annoying. Surely there's a simpler way to work around this issue on their side? I mean their code already has to know what network is *expected*, right, otherwise what stops you accidentally trying to send coins cross chain? On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: > bitcore guesses the network from the address version in several places in > its code. They don't want to change that. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest > approach for them to use. I thought it might be simple to change the > address version since its still relatively new and it isn't a real network. > Would it be too much work to change? > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would also have to be >> changed. >> >> You didn't provide a rationale for this. What's the cost of having them >> be the same? >> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Warren Togami Jr. wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> I propose changing all of the address versions in -regtest mode to be >>> unique so they are no longer identical to testnet. >>> >>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixes >>> For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or R. >>> >>> We need to know if any existing tools would need to be modified to >>> support this change to regtest. Do existing tools outside of pull tester >>> expect regtest to have testnet addresses? If the quantity of tools that >>> currently handle regtest is small then we can modify them to the new >>> address versions. >>> >>> Warren Togami >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> "Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE >>> Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos. >>> Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform >>> available >>> Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free." >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SauceLabs >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bitcoin-development mailing list >>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >>> >>> >> > --001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And they can't just do

=C2=A0 Netwo= rkParams.TESTNET =3D NetworkParams.REGTEST=C2=A0

a= t the start of a program that is connecting to regtest?

It's not like changing the address code is a huge problem or anyt= hing, but it would disrupt a bunch of people and seems kind of annoying. Su= rely there's a simpler way to work around this issue on their side? I m= ean their code already has to know what network is expected, right, = otherwise what stops you accidentally trying to send coins cross chain?



On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.= com> wrote:
bitcore guesses the network= from the address version in several places in its code. =C2=A0They don'= ;t want to change that. =C2=A0Perhaps it wasn't the wisest approach for= them to use. =C2=A0I thought it might be simple to change the address vers= ion since its still relatively new and it isn't a real network. =C2=A0W= ould it be too much work to change?


On Tue, May 1= 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
Yes, bitcoinj supports and uses regtest mode. It would als= o have to be changed.

You didn't provide a rationale= for this. What's the cost of having them be the same?


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:45 = AM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi folks,

I propose changing all of the= address versions in -regtest mode to be unique so they are no longer ident= ical to testnet.

For example, regtest pubkey hash addresses could begin with r or= R.

We need to know if any existing tools would ne= ed to be modified to support this change to regtest. =C2=A0Do existing tool= s outside of pull tester expect regtest to have testnet addresses? =C2=A0If= the quantity of tools that currently handle regtest is small then we can m= odify them to the new address versions.

Warren Togami


-----------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
"Accelerate Dev Cycles with Automated Cross-Browser Testing - For FREE=
Instantly run your Selenium tests across 300+ browser/OS combos.
Get unparalleled scalability from the best Selenium testing platform availa= ble
Simple to use. Nothing to install. Get started now for free."
http://p.sf.net= /sfu/SauceLabs
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment




--001a1134c0f4dca82904f9465d78--