Anonymous user
Talk:Bitcoin/address validation: Difference between revisions
→Task definition: Trying to identify what's really needed…
(→Task definition: I want clarity of definition and good naming) |
(→Task definition: Trying to identify what's really needed…) |
||
Line 5:
::: I'm not too worried about the narrowness of the task spec, just that it's possible to work out how to implement it without reading someone else's solution and that it is possible (even if not necessarily ''easy'') to verify the correctness without reference to someone else's code. If these are satisfied and we've got evidence of independent implementations, it's a good draft and can advance to being a full task.
::: Of more interest though is whether there will be other bitcoin-related tasks in the future (specifically, the next 3 months; there's no point trying to plan further ahead than that). If not, the name of this one should change. That's independent of whether this is draft or not. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
: Looking at this further (and peeking at the proposed solutions) the task appears to be to verify that the data is base58-encoded and that the computed check-digits match the supplied ones (which is basically following the bottom of [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/images/en/9/9b/PubKeyToAddr.png this diagram], i.e., after the ripemd160 step). If this is the case, it is important to '''spell this out''' in the task definition rather than leaving it to people to guess. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 09:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
| |||