Quote from: bitmover on Today at 04:52:48 PM

Quote from: 1miau on Today at 12:24:04 AM

Quote from: achow101 on February 05, 2018, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: bitmover on February 05, 2018, 04:33:49 PM

My doubt, regarding signing in segwit address is if this is a "bug" and will soon be corrected, or is it an abandoned feature?

It is neither a bug nor an abandoned feature. It is just that we are still working on creating a more generalized signing scheme that lets people sign with things like P2SH addresses (e.g. sign with a multisig address). There is simply no standard yet for signing with such scripts or with Segwit.

Hi, thanks for quoting that discussion. This was my first discussion here in bitcointalk, more than 2 years ago, and the problem is still not solved... i wish we had a solution for this, so we all could really stop using legacy addresses for good,.

While electrum did a nice solution, we still need a solution which is widely verified by any software.

Sure, it would be very nice but I don't have any problems to use legacy addresses for signing. At least, these "old" legacy addresses still have that mayor benefit over SegWit, that signing is fully compatible. It seems to me addresses starting with 1... are increasingly getting "hated" because SegWit is more efficient. Cheesy

Quote from: OgNasty on Today at 10:02:08 PM

Quote from: 1miau on Today at 12:36:54 AM

How about increasing the level from now on? Cheesy

Set a requirement to use only vanity adresses with at least 4 digits. Most likely that will help to prevent *some* fraudulent practices if we add more requirements (at least x posts, at least x registration duration etc.).

I don't want to require that level of technical prowess in order for newbies to earn a merit, nor do I want to require that they use software outside of Bitcoin Core to participate.

Ok, fair point.