Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CAIP-2 (Chain ID): The Bitcoin interface #4

Closed
2 tasks
webmaster128 opened this issue Nov 27, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed
2 tasks

CAIP-2 (Chain ID): The Bitcoin interface #4

webmaster128 opened this issue Nov 27, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@webmaster128
Copy link
Contributor

webmaster128 commented Nov 27, 2019

This is ticket is about the details of the Bitcoin interface for #2.


Interface name

The name of this interface should be "bitcoin", referring to the wider Bitcoin ecosystem, including multiple forks of the chain and the code.

Reference definition

The definition is delegated to BIP122. The reference format is bip122-%s, where %s is a 32 character prefix of the block hash from BIP122 (lower case hex).

Blockchains in this interface

  • Bitcoin + chain forks
  • Litecoin + chain forks (e.g. Feathercoin)

Blockchains not in this interface

Examples

# Bitcoin mainnet (see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0122.mediawiki#definition-of-chain-id)
bitcoin:bip122-000000000019d6689c085ae165831e93

# Litecoin
bitcoin:bip122-12a765e31ffd4059bada1e25190f6e98

# Feathercoin (Litecoin fork)
bitcoin:bip122-fdbe99b90c90bae7505796461471d89a

Open questions:

  • Should we drop the "bip122-" prefix?
  • How to find a list of important blockchains that can be covered by this interface? What about e.g. Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Zcash, …
@webmaster128
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done in #9

@daira
Copy link

daira commented Jun 18, 2024

ZCash: BIP122 excluded explicitely by zcash/zips#87 (comment). Further research may be necessary to understand why and if there is an alternative blockchain ID specification.

Just to clarify, Zcash excluded that BIP from its specification because it was in Draft at the time (2016-10-02). It became Active on 2016-11-30 according to its history on GitHub. All Draft BIPs as of 2016-10-02 were excluded, and this one wasn't going to affect consensus anyway.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants