George Kadianakis <desnac...@riseup.net> writes:
> Hello list,
>
> <snip>
>
> [D3] Do we like base32???
>
> In this proposal I suggest we keep the base32 encoding since we've been
> using it for a while; but this is the perfect time to switch if we feel
> the need to.
>
> For example, Bitcoin is using base58 which is much more compact than
> base32, and also has much better UX properties than base64:
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding#Background
>
> If we wanted to get a more compact encoding, we could adopt base58 or
> make our own adaptation of it. In this proposal I'm using base32 for
> everything, but I could be persuaded that now is the time to use a
> better
> encoding.
>
Oops, pressed "Send" a bit too quickly as always...
Just to give you a better idea here, I did some calculations about the
compactness of base58.
It seems that if we use Bitcoin's base58 we will be able to encode a
37-byte address (32 byte pubkey, one version byte and 4 bytes of
checksum) into 51 base58 characters, instead of 60 base32 characters.
Comparison:
(base32):
tc2dty3zowj6oyhbyb5n3a2h3luztlx22hy2cwdvn37omsv7quy7rxiysn3a.onion
tbdczrndtadzdhb6iyemnxf7f4i6x7yojnunarlrvt2virtmrecmwgx5golq.onion
(base58):
tkb8klf9zgwqnogidda76mzpl6tszzy36hwxmsssznydyxyb9kf.onion
touecgu8rmjxexxipud5bdku4mkfqezyd4dz1jvhtvqvbtlvytj.onion
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
