{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Jonas Schnelli [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Jonas Schnelli [ARCHIVE] (npub1nf…3dtxs)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1nfrrurat393mqymf3s26pujyn5vujlem3pzcukr5p9d4qpklngxq43dtxs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2018-06-25\n📝 Original message:Hi\n\u003e As was partially brought up by William, shouldn't we consider using\n\u003e bech32? It doesn't break on double-click and it is a dependency for\n\u003e native Segwit addresses anyway, so wallets might already support it or\n\u003e they will at some point. But we should probably run some numbers on this\n\u003e first, since bech32 will obviously be larger than base64.\nI don’t think bech32 is a fit here.\nBech32 is a BCH where the error detecting properties are optimised for 1023 chars max and in the special case of the Bech32 BCH, error detection of 4 chars are guaranteed with a max length of 90 chars.\n\n/jonas\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180625/88470c4c/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20180625/88470c4c/attachment.sig\u003e"}