So what's next, drop base58 support?That would be good, because base58 is never enforced by consensus. If you write everything in base16, then it would work as well, if not better. For example: instead of , you can use 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93. It is equivalent. And there is no a single place in the protocol, where people would ever be forced to use base58. Edit: More than that: Nobody forces you to use 32-bit checksum. You can use 256-bit checksum as well: And then, instead of writing 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93, you can use the full version, and write 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d937e3049e279391e62fdf00c12def74 44013ddf6215808d10e9f2d5996. Nobody will stop you. So, when it comes to wallets, you can use anything you want. No, it obviously wouldn't be good to drop base58 support, im not even going into that. In fact, all of this nonsense started since segwit was introduced, which opened the can of worms we have now. 90phut Net shouldn't have anything but base58 addresses that begin with an 1. At least a proper node can ignore these. As far as HD wallets, the fact that an attacker needs less bits to steal all funds vs a non-HD wallet has not been disputed, and this defeats any ease of use cases of HD wallets over non-HD wallets, for also obvious reasons. Non-HD wallets barely need any maintenance, just let the software load the keys, it's just a collection of private keys sitting on an airgap computer, no excuse to not support it.
So what's next, drop base58 support?That would be good, because base58 is never enforced by consensus. If you write everything in base16, then it would work as well, if not better. For example: instead of , you can use 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93. It is equivalent. And there is no a single place in the protocol, where people would ever be forced to use base58. Edit: More than that: Nobody forces you to use 32-bit checksum. You can use 256-bit checksum as well: And then, instead of writing 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93, you can use the full version, and write 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d937e3049e279391e62fdf00c12def74 44013ddf6215808d10e9f2d5996. Nobody will stop you. So, when it comes to wallets, you can use anything you want. No, it obviously wouldn't be good to drop base58 support, im not even going into that. In fact, all of this nonsense started since segwit was introduced, which opened the can of worms we have now. 90phut Net shouldn't have anything but base58 addresses that begin with an 1. At least a proper node can ignore these. As far as HD wallets, the fact that an attacker needs less bits to steal all funds vs a non-HD wallet has not been disputed, and this defeats any ease of use cases of HD wallets over non-HD wallets, for also obvious reasons. Non-HD wallets barely need any maintenance, just let the software load the keys, it's just a collection of private keys sitting on an airgap computer, no excuse to not support it.

So what's next, drop base58 support?That would be good, because base58 is never enforced by consensus. If you write everything in base16, then it would work as well, if not better. For example: instead of , you can use 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93. It is equivalent. And there is no a single place in the protocol, where people would ever be forced to use base58. Edit: More than that: Nobody forces you to use 32-bit checksum. You can use 256-bit checksum as well: And then, instead of writing 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93, you can use the full version, and write 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d937e3049e279391e62fdf00c12def74 44013ddf6215808d10e9f2d5996. Nobody will stop you. So, when it comes to wallets, you can use anything you want. No, it obviously wouldn't be good to drop base58 support, im not even going into that. In fact, all of this nonsense started since segwit was introduced, which opened the can of worms we have now. 90phut Net shouldn't have anything but base58 addresses that begin with an 1. At least a proper node can ignore these. As far as HD wallets, the fact that an attacker needs less bits to steal all funds vs a non-HD wallet has not been disputed, and this defeats any ease of use cases of HD wallets over non-HD wallets, for also obvious reasons. Non-HD wallets barely need any maintenance, just let the software load the keys, it's just a collection of private keys sitting on an airgap computer, no excuse to not support it.

So what's next, drop base58 support?That would be good, because base58 is never enforced by consensus. If you write everything in base16, then it would work as well, if not better. For example: instead of , you can use 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93. It is equivalent. And there is no a single place in the protocol, where people would ever be forced to use base58. Edit: More than that: Nobody forces you to use 32-bit checksum. You can use 256-bit checksum as well: And then, instead of writing 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d93, you can use the full version, and write 0062e907b15cbf27d5425399ebf6f0fb50ebb88f18c29b7d937e3049e279391e62fdf00c12def74 44013ddf6215808d10e9f2d5996. Nobody will stop you. So, when it comes to wallets, you can use anything you want. No, it obviously wouldn't be good to drop base58 support, im not even going into that. In fact, all of this nonsense started since segwit was introduced, which opened the can of worms we have now. 90phut Net shouldn't have anything but base58 addresses that begin with an 1. At least a proper node can ignore these. As far as HD wallets, the fact that an attacker needs less bits to steal all funds vs a non-HD wallet has not been disputed, and this defeats any ease of use cases of HD wallets over non-HD wallets, for also obvious reasons. Non-HD wallets barely need any maintenance, just let the software load the keys, it's just a collection of private keys sitting on an airgap computer, no excuse to not support it.