BIP38: remove broken links #1445

1. 
   MarnixCroes commented at 10:25 am on April 13, 2023: contributor
2. in bip-0038.mediawiki:55 in ab8068e8ff outdated

   54+*'''G, N''': Constants defined as part of the [[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Secp256k1|secp256k1]] elliptic curve.  G is an elliptic curve point, and N is a large positive integer.
   55+*'''[[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding|Base58Check]]''': a method for encoding arrays of bytes using 58 alphanumeric characters commonly used in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
   56 
   57 ===Prefix===
   58-It is proposed that the resulting Base58Check-encoded string start with a '6'.  The number '6' is intended to represent, from the perspective of the user, "a private key that needs something else to be usable" - an umbrella definition that could be understood in the future to include keys participating in multisig transactions, and was chosen with deference to the existing prefix '5' most commonly observed in [[Wallet Import Format]] which denotes an unencrypted private key.
   59+It is proposed that the resulting Base58Check-encoded string start with a '6'.  The number '6' is intended to represent, from the perspective of the user, "a private key that needs something else to be usable" - an umbrella definition that could be understood in the future to include keys participating in multisig transactions, and was chosen with deference to the existing prefix '5' most commonly observed in [[https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet_import_format|WIF]] which denotes an unencrypted private key.
   

   ---

   ---

   

   katesalazar commented at 1:26 pm on April 13, 2023:

   I’d suggest sticking to the previous literal, so that this doesn’t fall out of being just administrivia.

   ---

   

   Nate191941 commented at 3:47 pm on April 25, 2023:

   Ok
3. Nate191941 approved
4. 
   luke-jr commented at 6:15 pm on June 29, 2023: member

   @voisine
5. luke-jr added the label Proposed BIP modification on Jun 29, 2023
6. 
   murchandamus commented at 6:23 pm on May 1, 2024: contributor

   While the original links seem to have been all dead, adding targets to the link seems like a potential meaningful change in what the author may have wanted to express. I do not think that this should be merged without endorsement of the original BIP authors, even if that means that the links remain dead.

   I do not consider the dead links a major issue, since the terms “secp256k1”, “Base58Check”, and “Wallet Import Format” are all easy research targets.

   I recommend closing this PR after 2024-05-15 unless it has been endorsed by the BIP author (paging @voisine) by that date or further discussion indicates another outcome.

7. 
   jonatack commented at 6:47 pm on May 1, 2024: contributor

   Tend to NACK, as elsewhere in this repository these terms are without a link, or in a couple of cases to a different link. It may make more sense to drop the links.
8. murchandamus added the label Pending acceptance on May 8, 2024
9. BIP38: remove dead links 4c08e2c0bf
10. MarnixCroes force-pushed on May 22, 2024
11. 
    MarnixCroes commented at 9:32 am on May 22, 2024: contributor

    removed the dead links, as suggested here #1445#pullrequestreview-2034217162 otherwise, feel free to close the PR
12. jonatack renamed this:
    BIP38: fix broken links
    BIP38: remove broken links
    on May 22, 2024
13. 
    jonatack commented at 12:06 pm on May 22, 2024: contributor

    ACK, removes broken non-essential links with no change in meaning of the BIP.
14. jonatack merged this on May 22, 2024
15. jonatack closed this on May 22, 2024

    ---

16. MarnixCroes deleted the branch on May 22, 2024

Contributors
MarnixCroes katesalazar Nate191941 luke-jr murchandamus jonatack

Labels
Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance