Re: Use of Base58 in technical specifications

My experience with base58 is that it doesn't actually refer to a specific
encoding... See:

- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msporny-base58-01
- https://github.com/tuupola/base58#character-sets

The last one has the sad truth... base58 is a family, not a specific
encoding name...

I usually hear base58 from people who mean to say: "Base 58 with the
Bitcoin Alphabet"...

https://github.com/digitalbazaar/forge/blob/dd5d972b1cc6faf225afda3fc04093bd93cad16a/lib/util.js#L1569

If you want to never be misinterpreted, never use the term "base58" without
saying "with the bitcoin alphabet" :) ... but it's likely that when you
hear base58, you can assume "with the bitcoin alphabet".

OS

On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 2:43 PM Christopher Allen <
ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to get an understanding of the use of base58 and base58check in
> technical specifications (not standards), in particular, how broad the
> usage is of bae58 in the non-IETF/W3C standards based blockchain
> communities.
>
> Base58 similar to Base64 but has been modified to avoid both
> non-alphanumeric characters and letters which might look ambiguous when
> printed. Base58 achieves 73% efficiency. Like Base64URL, it avoids conflict
> with URI reserved characters, but it doesn't seem to say anything about
> forbidding line-break characters (but I've never seen linebreaks in a
> base58).
>
> It has been argued: "We reject Base58 and Base58Check (for use in a URI)
> due to their lack of widespread adoption."
>
> But just because the IETF and W3C standards communities this is true,
> isn't necessarily a sufficient argument that it lacks "widespread
> adoption".
>
> — Christopher Allen
>


-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>