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Outdated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.
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.
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.
murchandamus
added
the
Pending acceptance
MarnixCroes
force-pushed
the
bip38-fix-links
branch
from
1dbf31c
to
4c08e2c
Compare
|
removed the dead links, as suggested here #1445 (review) |
No description provided.