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.