# UX Proposal: Consensus-Based Address Formats

**URL:** <https://forum.polkadot.network/t/ux-proposal-consensus-based-address-formats/6072>\
**Category:** Tech Talk\
**Tags:** ux\
**Created:** [February 8, 2024, 8:33am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/ux-proposal-consensus-based-address-formats/6072 "2024-02-08T08:33:08Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tomaka](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/forum.polkadot.network/tomaka/32/286_2.png) [@tomaka](https://forum.polkadot.network/u/tomaka)\
**Post date:** [February 8, 2024, 9:46am UTC](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/ux-proposal-consensus-based-address-formats/6072/2 "2024-02-08T09:46:15Z")

</div>

> [@joepetrowski](#):
>
> This would require no state migrations, but would require:
> 
> 1. Parachains to update their chainspecs to change their SS58 prefix; and

Alternatively, UIs could just ignore the SS58 prefix value in the chain spec and automatically use 0 or 2 based on whether the chain is a relay chain or parachain. Or do that if the SS58 prefix is missing from the chain spec.

The `properties` field of the chain spec is in general not the most well designed, and ultimately getting rid of it is IMO a better idea.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.polkadot.network/t/ux-proposal-consensus-based-address-formats/6072)._