Regtest Address Version Change Proposal

Regtest Address Version Change Proposal
2014-05-13 10:30 ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Warren Togami Jr. @ 2014-05-13  9:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 789 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-05-13  9:45 [Bitcoin-development] Regtest Address Version Change Proposal Warren Togami Jr.

  2014-05-13 11:02   ` Warren Togami Jr.
  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2014-05-13 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren Togami Jr.;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1447 bytes --]

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. <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 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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2303 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-05-13 10:30 ` Mike Hearn

  2014-05-13 11:28     ` Mike Hearn
  
From: Warren Togami Jr. @ 2014-05-13 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mike Hearn;  Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1900 bytes --]

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 <mike@plan99•net> 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. <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 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
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3095 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2014-05-13 11:02   ` Warren Togami Jr.

  
From: Mike Hearn @ 2014-05-13 11:28 UTC ( / )
  To: Warren Togami Jr.;  Bitcoin Dev



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. <wtogami@gmail•com>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 <mike@plan99•net> 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. <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 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>