Topic: FirstBits.com - remember and share Bitcoin addresses - page 6. (Read 26280 times)
Fixed and blocks are updated through 136101, so addresses up through 136094 should be retrievable now.
Looks like a small change I made to the code caused it to get stuck in a loop, never moving beyond block 135948. I'll fix it and let you know when the blocks have been filled between 135948 and whatever block we're currently at.
I agree that something doesn't seem to be working anymore. My address first in block 136059 isn't in firstbits.com's database, and it's now block 136071. I'm guessing that a bitcoin client crashed or something.
Well, let's post something here, so that it works 
.
I have a transfer with 22 confirmations, involving an address that is still unknown to firstbits.com. It appears in the block explorer. What do I do?
.I have a transfer with 22 confirmations, involving an address that is still unknown to firstbits.com. It appears in the block explorer. What do I do?
Has anybody asked what happens if at some point you give out your 4-bit address to receive some BTC from a new friend and they give the BTC's to a complete stranger? It just doesn't sit well... 
You mean if there is a mistake? The coins would be gone.
I'm assuming Bitman misgrokked the concept, as I and many others did before the moment of ah ha zen.
If the following were the ENTIRE block chain history, then the underlined prefix will have been and always will be their first bits:
1h8sjkl123456789 January
1h8sxx123456789 February
1h8abc123456789 March
1h7123123456789 April
1h8sww123456789 May
1z987asdf9isfhakls June
an address created a couple days ago, and used for the first time an hr ago is not showing up, it has 6 confirms on the transaction.
edit after 12 confirms it works now. (i didn't check in the middle of 6 and 12)
Sorry, we need to clarify the 6 confirmations thing. It does require MORE than 6 confirmations, so seven would be the minimum before you see it show up in a search. This ensures the system has sufficient time to verify that all addresses have been gathered and added to the database. edit after 12 confirms it works now. (i didn't check in the middle of 6 and 12)
Has anybody asked what happens if at some point you give out your 4-bit address to receive some BTC from a new friend and they give the BTC's to a complete stranger? It just doesn't sit well...
You mean if there is a mistake? The coins would be gone.
Though in theory, the system is sound. In practice, things can happen. As we saw when they were using bad blocks data, the firstbits address given out may be wrong. You can never be sure that this won't happen again, right?
Can you think of ways to improve? It's not a complicated thing, maybe something open source could be written that would use your own copy of the chain?
If it ends up that you need to trust a party for look ups it is still better than other shorteners because anyone who can follow the simple rule can join and add redundancy. Obviously you can't just go trusting any one though. Hopefully some people with related business who already have trust will make conversions.
Has anybody asked what happens if at some point you give out your 4-bit address to receive some BTC from a new friend and they give the BTC's to a complete stranger? It just doesn't sit well...
an address created a couple days ago, and used for the first time an hr ago is not showing up, it has 6 confirms on the transaction.
edit after 12 confirms it works now. (i didn't check in the middle of 6 and 12)
edit after 12 confirms it works now. (i didn't check in the middle of 6 and 12)
Though in theory, the system is sound. In practice, things can happen. As we saw when they were using bad blocks data, the firstbits address given out may be wrong. You can never be sure that this won't happen again, right?
I'd be willing to bet that he's incorrectly expecting there to be collisions.
I'd be willing to bet that you're right.
I'd be willing to bet that he's incorrectly expecting there to be collisions.
Shortening a hash, especially a Bitcoin address is just asking for trouble.
I think the convenience of being able to remember and say enough info to rebuild an address is too much to just pass up.
I know there are risks. Can you help clarify them?
Shortening a hash, especially a Bitcoin address is just asking for trouble.
If the check-sum ever happens I just want to give idea out. It could be the first character in firstbit address. So it can't mess up the later addresses. Not sure how it should be calculated, but it is logical solution if checksum is needed.
Two addresses of mine, which have already 7 confirmations, still don't appear in the chain according to firstbits. Maybe the bitcoin instance running there was offline during the downtime period and isn't up to date?
Edit: It's working. Seems I needed to post something here.
Edit: It's working. Seems I needed to post something here
.It might take 6 confirms plus a few minutes. Let me know if it takes longer.
Two addresses of mine, which have already 7 confirmations, still don't appear in the chain according to firstbits. Maybe the bitcoin instance running there was offline during the downtime period and isn't up to date?
Edit: It's working. Seems I needed to post something here.
Edit: It's working. Seems I needed to post something here
.
Site is finally back up! Sorry for the delay.
yup yup
Jump to: