Due to the upgrade of CIP-37, there is a certain dispute in the community on how to display Conflux’s new address on the front end. This post is a call for abbreviations for the new Conflux address standard. Conflux official products will display the Conflux address according to the voting results and recommend Conflux community products adopt the same display method.
Option 1: (Current Scan’s solution)
- The official website address display format: cfx: first>= 8 digits +…; such as: cfx:aasjr8fj…
- The test network address display format: cfxtest: first >= 8 digits +…; such as: cfxtest:aatd0wzv…
Advantages:
It can be judged whether it is the same address completely by the first 8 characters.
Disadvantages:
It does not meet the habits of most users, and it feels very laborious to check the address.
Option II:
- The official website address display format: cfx: first 3 digits +…+ last <= 8 digits; for example: cfx: aat…e32h4yz6
- Testnet address display format: cfxtest: first 3 digits +…+ last <= 8 digits; such as: cfxtest: aat…swn168v0
Advantages:
-
It is convenient to judge the address type. The current address format can simply determine the address type by opening the first 3 digits after cfx: (available under current rules, and may change in the future). For example: personal address starts with cfx:aa, contract address starts with cfx:ac, built-in contract The beginning address is cfx:aae
-
The last 8 bits are the complete Checksum, which can ensure the correctness of the address.
Disadvantages:
The last 8 characters of the same address of the test network and the main network are inconsistent, and the last few characters cannot be used to determine whether the address is the same.
Option III:
- The official website address display format: cfx: first>=4 digits +…+last 4 digits; for example: cfx:aatd…4yz6
- Testnet address display format: cfxtest: first>=4 digits +…+last 4 digits; for example: cfxtest:aatd…168v0
Advantages:
It can be judged whether it is the same address completely through the beginning and the end, which conforms to the habits of most users, and is basically the same as the address format when the Checksum rule is not added.
Disadvantages:
The last 4 characters of the same address of the test network and the main network are inconsistent, and the last few characters cannot be used to determine whether the address is the same. Compared with 8-bit Checksum, 8-bit has stronger uniqueness and 4-bit is a little weaker. Compared with the second scheme, there is a small probability that an address conflict will occur.
-
- Solution 1 such as: cfx:aasjr8fj…
-
- Solution 2 such as: cfx:aat…e32h4yz6
-
- Solution 3 such as: cfx:aatd…4yz6
0 voters