-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BIP38: remove broken links #1445
Conversation
bip-0038.mediawiki
Outdated
|
||
===Prefix=== | ||
It is proposed that the resulting Base58Check-encoded string start with a '6'. The number '6' is intended to represent, from the perspective of the user, "a private key that needs something else to be usable" - an umbrella definition that could be understood in the future to include keys participating in multisig transactions, and was chosen with deference to the existing prefix '5' most commonly observed in [[Wallet Import Format]] which denotes an unencrypted private key. | ||
It is proposed that the resulting Base58Check-encoded string start with a '6'. The number '6' is intended to represent, from the perspective of the user, "a private key that needs something else to be usable" - an umbrella definition that could be understood in the future to include keys participating in multisig transactions, and was chosen with deference to the existing prefix '5' most commonly observed in [[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet_import_format|WIF]] which denotes an unencrypted private key. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd suggest sticking to the previous literal, so that this doesn't fall out of being just administrivia.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While the original links seem to have been all dead, adding targets to the link seems like a potential meaningful change in what the author may have wanted to express. I do not think that this should be merged without endorsement of the original BIP authors, even if that means that the links remain dead.
I do not consider the dead links a major issue, since the terms "secp256k1", "Base58Check", and "Wallet Import Format" are all easy research targets.
I recommend closing this PR after 2024-05-15 unless it has been endorsed by the BIP author (paging @voisine) by that date or further discussion indicates another outcome.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tend to NACK, as elsewhere in this repository these terms are without a link, or in a couple of cases to a different link. It may make more sense to drop the links.
1dbf31c
to
4c08e2c
Compare
removed the dead links, as suggested here #1445 (review) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK, removes broken non-essential links with no change in meaning of the BIP.
No description provided.