can we send bitcoin to ip addresses? - page 2.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: internetional on August 03, 2023, 02:06:24 PM

Thank you very much. I have looked for old transactions and found such type of address. E.g. Hal’s one: 0411db93e1dcdb8a016b49840f8c53bc1eb68a382e97b1482ecad7b148a6909a5cb2e0eaddfb84c cf9744464f82e160bfa9b8b64f9d4c03f999b8643f656b412a3

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

P2PK is still standard and block explorers should still identify them as such. Some of the block explorers erroneously identify them as a P2PKH address type instead which is wrong. Interestingly, Bitcoin addresses were used for receiving payments from the start but Pay-To-IP feature and mining both uses P2PK instead. Hence, Hal Finney transaction could just be using Pay-To-IP.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 7340

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: internetional on August 03, 2023, 02:06:24 PM

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

No, it doesn't. Transaction - f5e26c8b82401c585235c572ba8265f16f7d9304ed8e31c198eab571754f5331 - is paying the coinbase reward of block 30 to a P2PK output. It rightly notes that it's a P2PK (not an address), and it shows the uncompressed public key below.

internetional

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 2026

Quote from: ranochigo on August 02, 2023, 09:42:05 PM

Quote from: internetional on August 02, 2023, 01:08:25 PM

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer.

Bitcoin Core. If you're going to P2PK, then you'll have to spend with a wallet that accepts your private key as a P2PK type instead of a P2PKH type. Most of the transactions in the earlier days are P2PK, not P2PKH. Blockexplorers tend to translate them into a P2PKH type but that is incorrect.

Thank you very much. I have looked for old transactions and found such type of address. E.g. Hal’s one: 0411db93e1dcdb8a016b49840f8c53bc1eb68a382e97b1482ecad7b148a6909a5cb2e0eaddfb84c cf9744464f82e160bfa9b8b64f9d4c03f999b8643f656b412a3

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: internetional on August 02, 2023, 01:08:25 PM

Quote from: ranochigo on August 02, 2023, 09:31:52 AM

Quote from: _act_ on August 02, 2023, 09:14:28 AM

The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

You can. P2PK is still standard, it's just that most wallets don't support or show their user an option to do so.

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous?

As stated on link by @Knight Hider, Bitcoin Core doesn't support it anymore. I don't remember other wallet ever implement such feature since it require receiver to have static IP and always online. Although it's different case if you're willing to use very old version of Bitcoin Core (previous called "Bitcoin Qt") which can't perform full sync.

Quote from: internetional on August 02, 2023, 01:08:25 PM

It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer.

It'll just look any transaction though, with exception P2PK address as receiver of the coin.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 10611

Quote from: _act_ on August 02, 2023, 01:30:15 PM

You do not need to try anything like that, P2PK was used before bitcoin address was created which was P2PKH, which means you will pay to public key hash which is bitcoin address, instead of paying to public key directly. There are now other address types that can be used for payment which is what you should better be using.

To be clear the option to pay to address (ie. P2PKH scripts and addresses) was not something to be added later. They were available from the first release that is version 0.1.0. The only reason why P2PK is seen in all early blocks is that the P2PK outputs were the default output type that the bitcoin core miner chose.

vjudeu

copper member

Activity: 901

Merit: 2244

If you want to use P2PK, then at least use compressed key. For example:

Code:

04 678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb6 49f6bc3f4cef38c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f //uncompressed, don't use this
03 678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb6 //compressed, use that instead

Also, instead of P2PK, you could switch to Taproot, then Schnorr signatures will be applied, and nobody will know, how many keys were aggregated.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: internetional on August 02, 2023, 01:08:25 PM

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer.

Bitcoin Core. If you're going to P2PK, then you'll have to spend with a wallet that accepts your private key as a P2PK type instead of a P2PKH type. Most of the transactions in the earlier days are P2PK, not P2PKH. Blockexplorers tend to translate them into a P2PKH type but that is incorrect.

_act_

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1298

Lightning network is good with small amount of BTC

Quote from: internetional on August 02, 2023, 01:08:25 PM

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer.

You do not need to try anything like that, P2PK was used before bitcoin address was created which was P2PKH, which means you will pay to public key hash which is bitcoin address, instead of paying to public key directly. There are now other address types that can be used for payment which is what you should better be using.

internetional

legendary

Activity: 1610

Merit: 2026

Quote from: ranochigo on August 02, 2023, 09:31:52 AM

Quote from: _act_ on August 02, 2023, 09:14:28 AM

The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

You can. P2PK is still standard, it's just that most wallets don't support or show their user an option to do so.

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer.

Faisal2202

hero member

Activity: 1386

Merit: 513

Payment Gateway Allows Recurring Payments

I can recall that this topic was made before even though i might have answers on that topic too. Well, here is mine, IP should be secure like there are many layers on internet and only the experienced ones or the most careful ones will use the IP in only severe conditions and if they would have used then they must have secured the connection first. As, i think it must not be a preferred way back then well that's what i assumed from this because many legendary members are so careful in such cases.

So, the best practice must be sending on Wallet address instead of IP where both parties have to be online while making the transaction.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: _act_ on August 02, 2023, 09:14:28 AM

The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

IP sending could be secure, if the path that the data transfer goes through can be guaranteed to be secure. But that'll probably require some form of pre-shared key or authentication. But it isn't too useful regardless.

You can. P2PK is still standard, it's just that most wallets don't support or show their user an option to do so.

_act_

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1298

Lightning network is good with small amount of BTC

There are some things that are no longer possible because they were removed. The first is to be sending to IP address which people on this forum and other bitcoin users have used befor, but this is not secure like sending directly to your bitcoin address. The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 4418

Crypto Swap Exchange

It's removed because it is very inaccurate and insecure. Bitcoin communications are never encrypted and thus your ISP or anyone on your network could respond with their own address. Besides, there is no tangible benefits to doing so. The message part is local, just a memo for you to indicate what the transaction is for.

Knight Hider

member

Activity: 239

Merit: 59

a young loner on a crusade

Sending Bitcoin to IP addresses is no longer possible.

--Knight Hider

cafter

full member

Activity: 448

Merit: 223

i was reading satoshi nakamoto's post on p2p foundation, and i clicked bitcoin.org link in introduction and just for curiosity searched it on wayback machine to see how the website looked like in 2009,
but, after scrolling i saw this image..

"If the recipient is online, you can enter their IP address and it will connect, get a new public key and send the transaction with comments."
really... is it possible to send bitcoin on a ip address if we are online? or i am wrong? just started to learn

only one reply in 2009 by "Sepp Hasslberge"?

Topic: can we send bitcoin to ip addresses? - page 2. (Read 458 times)