Hello, David Goulet wrote:
<snip>
OK thanks for the useful discussion. I identified at least three feedback points:
+ Screw base58 it's not gonna work. We stick to base32. Usability will be "restored" with a proper name system.
+ Move version byte to the end of the address to avoid constant prefix. Moving version byte to the middle as teor suggested would cause forward-compatibility issues.
+ My checksum calculations were wrong. Checksum is strong! 2 bytes are enough.
And given the above, here is the new microproposal:
onion_address = base32(pubkey || checksum || version) checksum = SHA3(".onion checksum" || pubkey || version)
where: pubkey is 32 bytes ed25519 pubkey version is one byte (default value for prop224: '\x03') checksum hash is truncated to two bytes
Here are a few example addresses (with broken checksum):
l5satjgud6gucryazcyvyvhuxhr74u6ygigiuyixe3a6ysis67ororad.onion btojiu7nu5y5iwut64eufevogqdw4wmqzugnoluw232r4t3ecsfv37ad.onion vckjr6bpchiahzhmtzslnl477hdfvwhzw7dmymz3s5lp64mwf6wfeqad.onion
Checksum strength: The checksum has a false negative rate of 1/65536.
Address handling: Clients handling onion addresses first parse the version field, then extract pubkey, then verify checksum.
Let me know how you feel about this one. If people like it I will transcribe it to prop224.
I like this quite a bit! Simple, easy, and trivial to understand. 56 characters address, after that it will be the time to improve UX/UI with all sorts of possible tricks to make them easier to remember or copy paste or visualize or what not.
Unless some feedback NACK this, I say push that in the proposal soon. I'll personally start implementing that scheme this week.
I like the proposal in this form - Yes for all points. I also dislike being possible to have multiple addresses (versions) for the same public key, that would create implementation and usability problems. I wouldn't go for the hypens, but even if we decide at a later point that this was a good idea we can handle it at an upper layer, like with a browser tool or something, it's outside the scope of this microproposal. We all know only a naming system will really fix this issue from all points of view, so let's stick to that. Thanks for this! Really great work.