On 2017-01-23 07:50, George Kadianakis wrote:
George Kadianakis desnacked@riseup.net writes:
Hello list,
<snip>
[D3] Do we like base32???
In this proposal I suggest we keep the base32 encoding sincewe've been using it for a while; but this is the perfect time to switch if we feel the need to.
I am generally in favor or keeping the same encoding unless there is an unmistakable and objectively advantageous reason to switch. It throws users off when there is an "unnecessary" switch. Additionally, .onion addresses of variable lengths might be confusing.
For example, Bitcoin is using base58 which is much more compactthan base32, and also has much better UX properties than base64: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding#Background
Is the better "UX" the fact that "A set of 58 alphanumeric symbols consisting of easily distinguished uppercase and lowercase letters (0OIl are not used)"? Currently, the addresses are too long to memorize, hard to type out, and not pronounceable enough, to consider such properties.
But for the sake of discussion, if we were to consider some usability properties, but I think base 32 is "easier to use" because it doesn't use both upper and lower case letters.
Base 32 (RFC 4648 Base32 alphabet): ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZ234567 Base 58: 123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz
My justification is that it would be harder to memorize upper/lower case letters in addresses, that it's hard to type with alternating cases, and there isn't a good way to distinguish the two when you pronounce it.
That being said, I stand by my original stance that the addresses are too long to memorize, type, or pronounce, so this shouldn't be a huge consideration. So I vote to keep the base32 encoding for the reason of keeping it the same as it was before.
...but I could be persuaded that now is the time to use a better encoding.
I won't be persuading you. :) Thanks for doing good work!
Cheers, Linda