Hey, this is an awesome concept. I applaud you guys for coming up with it.
Removing the cases is a good thing because it would be hard for people to have to deal with upper and lower cases. There might be one gotcha though. Do you handle 2 addresses with the same characters but different cases properly. I know this is a rare edge case, but make sure you handle it. For example, 1abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz and 1abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwXYZ should not both match to the same firstbits 1abcd. The first one in the block chain should match to 1abcd and then second one should match to 1abcde. Just a thought.
Topic: FirstBits.com - remember and share Bitcoin addresses - page 8. (Read 26186 times)
netrin - input the FULL bitcoin address that you wish to shorten, and it will automatically find the shortest firstbits that can be associated with that address.
Example: http://firstbits.com/18TKNbSLTrd3a2W8mtoH5uNzFhWRWNcuHU
EDIT: The cutoff is at 24 chars. Anything longer than 24 chars, and it knows that it is not a firstbits address, but a full bitcoin address, so it converts the input to the shortest possible firstbits address. Anything shorter than 24 chars, and it knows that it is a firstbits address, and will look for the associated full bitcoin address.
Example: http://firstbits.com/18TKNbSLTrd3a2W8mtoH5uNzFhWRWNcuHU
EDIT: The cutoff is at 24 chars. Anything longer than 24 chars, and it knows that it is not a firstbits address, but a full bitcoin address, so it converts the input to the shortest possible firstbits address. Anything shorter than 24 chars, and it knows that it is a firstbits address, and will look for the associated full bitcoin address.
I would like to see the 'first bit' concept accepted as a standard. Blockexplorer should use it as well as the clients....
I think it would be a great addition to blockexplorer or similar and I really want a web wallet with integration, but...I agree.
...but firstbits does have the disadvantage of no checksum...
I disagree. The 34-some string requires a checksum because it is so darn long. A 1+4 or 5 character (of size 34 domain) does not need a checksum (like a phone number). I expect we'll have a MIME type so that firstbits.com/1xxxx resolves a very well defined string (perhaps a meta tag). I've seen discussion of a bitcoin:123456789012345678901234567890+payment format. But the key advantage of firstbits is not verbosity, but brevity.
As for UX, if the user comes in through a URL, I see no reason to present much more than the fully resolved address. But if the user uses the form/input, then more likely than not, he's playing with his own address. I'd highly recommend you explain what the user is seeing. It has not tiny-url-ed the address (as many like me initially assumed). Even now that I know how it works, I'm still manually typing in 1+8 characters and cutting one then another until I find the minimum. Its a trivial, but strange, procedure (partly because the client doesn't yet let me 'copy-paste' from the transaction history).
I would expect the interface to dynamically inform me of the number of collisions (always showing me the 'firstbit') as I type, cuz I'm probably typing with the full string at my side, otherwise, I would have used a link.
I would like to see the 'first bit' concept accepted as a standard. Blockexplorer should use it as well as the clients. Since the clients have a copy of the entire block chain (at least now and for the foresable future) the 'first bit' standard could be universal. And any clients which do not have the entire block chain will rely on a trusted server which does.
A "first bits" unambiguously refers to an address which unambiguously refers to a private key which unambiguously refers to a slice of the transaction history and ownership of bitcoin value.
A "first bits" unambiguously refers to an address which unambiguously refers to a private key which unambiguously refers to a slice of the transaction history and ownership of bitcoin value.
I think it would be a great addition to blockexplorer or similar and I really want a web wallet with integration, but firstbits does have the disadvantage of no checksum, one typo and your money is gone. So I think it needs something else before it's fit for the main client.
I would like to see the 'first bit' concept accepted as a standard. Blockexplorer should use it as well as the clients. Since the clients have a copy of the entire block chain (at least now and for the foresable future) the 'first bit' standard could be universal. And any clients which do not have the entire block chain will rely on a trusted server which does.
A "first bits" unambiguously refers to an address which unambiguously refers to a private key which unambiguously refers to a slice of the transaction history and ownership of bitcoin value.
A "first bits" unambiguously refers to an address which unambiguously refers to a private key which unambiguously refers to a slice of the transaction history and ownership of bitcoin value.
Firstbits.com is giving away some money. http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24514.0
I am curious as to what people think about services like this... does this take away or add to Bitcoin mass adoption?
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
Says the man with a bitcoin address in his sig...This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
Just sayin.
That's what I get for playing devil's advocate... rightly put in my place!
I am curious as to what people think about services like this... does this take away or add to Bitcoin mass adoption?
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
It does nothing to de-anonymize, but perhaps de-mystify, which can only be good for mass bitcoin adoption. As FreeMoney points out FirstBits.com is completely voluntary and takes absolutely no different action whether you participate or not. It's results present facts. The 'first bits' just are. The fact that you have a height in meters and or feet makes no additional assertion upon your identity because there is nothing connecting the scalar to the identity. Just as '1' uniquely identifies an address in the genesis block against all other transaction before it (in this case none). Whether FirstBits.com existed or not does not change this fact that no other address has this property.
I am curious as to what people think about services like this... does this take away or add to Bitcoin mass adoption?
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
Since it is completely optional I don't see how it could take anything away from adoption. It is a tool people can use if it makes Bitcoin easier or better for them. And it isn't more information than a full address anyway. Reusing a firstbits is the same as reusing a full address. Publishing a firstbits is the same as publishing a full address.
I am curious as to what people think about services like this... does this take away or add to Bitcoin mass adoption?
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
Says the man with a bitcoin address in his sig...This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
Just sayin.
I am curious as to what people think about services like this... does this take away or add to Bitcoin mass adoption?
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
This essentially "de-anonymizes" the highly obfuscated nature of Bitcoins' native addresses which, like most aspects of Bitcoins, is a virtue and a vice.
really cool idea. I am assuming firstbits returns the earliest known address if there are several others that match the search. this way u avoid collisions with new addresses as they are added to the chain.
actually now that i think about it, what happens with addresses not in the block chain? for example, if a businesses had to generate a new address for every transaction and used your service. unless you are saving every search address, its possible u would return the same firstbit address for different bitcoin addresses.
actually now that i think about it, what happens with addresses not in the block chain? for example, if a businesses had to generate a new address for every transaction and used your service. unless you are saving every search address, its possible u would return the same firstbit address for different bitcoin addresses.
Doesn't work well for creating address on the fly. This is a good way to remember a static payment address when there.
really cool idea. I am assuming firstbits returns the earliest known address if there are several others that match the search. this way u avoid collisions with new addresses as they are added to the chain.
actually now that i think about it, what happens with addresses not in the block chain? for example, if a businesses had to generate a new address for every transaction and used your service. unless you are saving every search address, its possible u would return the same firstbit address for different bitcoin addresses.
Yes, it returns the address that appears earliest in the blockchain if multiple addresses match the query.actually now that i think about it, what happens with addresses not in the block chain? for example, if a businesses had to generate a new address for every transaction and used your service. unless you are saving every search address, its possible u would return the same firstbit address for different bitcoin addresses.
The address must have been used in the blockchain in order to appear. You cannot use firstbits for a brand new address.
really cool idea. I am assuming firstbits returns the earliest known address if there are several others that match the search. this way u avoid collisions with new addresses as they are added to the chain.
actually now that i think about it, what happens with addresses not in the block chain? for example, if a businesses had to generate a new address for every transaction and used your service. unless you are saving every search address, its possible u would return the same firstbit address for different bitcoin addresses.
actually now that i think about it, what happens with addresses not in the block chain? for example, if a businesses had to generate a new address for every transaction and used your service. unless you are saving every search address, its possible u would return the same firstbit address for different bitcoin addresses.
I'd vote for wild wild west. Bounce 1 btc off of firstbits.com, and you can name it whatever you want. Go for max growth and see what users demand.
That is a good idea. Do you think it is important to verify that someone actually owns the address to tag it?
Besides this, I don't know much about namecoins but registering an address to a name may fit namecoin's purpose quite nicely. I understand namecoin is no more than a set of "A --> B" relationships.
I think namecoin is no good because whoever gets there first is the 'legit' naming. This is okay for web pages because you get a name first and then publish to it. But it's not good for marking firstbits because you usually already have one that's known and you have to beat everyone else to tagging it.
I think it is a flaw in the bitcoin client that we can not easily (1) extract keys from our wallets and/or (2) send from specific addresses. It's supposed to be an 'anonymous' currency but all these simultaneous splitting/merging transactions blows any cover or even just managing 'accounts'. I have a dozen wallets for these types of manipulation... but I digress.
It's not really a flaw, it's just something that hasn't been written yet, but will.
That is a good idea. Do you think it is important to verify that someone actually owns the address to tag it?
I would vote for it. No one stops me from using the vanity patch for creating an address that starts like Wikileaks' one, then registering it at firstbits as "Wikileaks donations address".
Besides this, I don't know much about namecoins but registering an address to a name may fit namecoin's purpose quite nicely. I understand namecoin is no more than a set of "A --> B" relationships.
As TTBit mentions, I think someone could claim an address with a short message "Netrin lives here" and you can easily and anonymously verify ownership upon receipt of a precise payment from that same address within 24 hours.
It can be hard for people to get a payment to come from a particular address if they have a wallet with lots of addresses in it. And people will usually want a particular address to be labeled.
Haha, could do this. Take a large fee and return it to the address in question. If you want to mislabel an address it'll cost you 8BTC. That's obviously not optimal, I'm joking.
Yeah, I was thinking payment would be enough, but sure if someone payed 1.0 bitcoins and you returned 0.9 (and kept 0.1), then you and the real owner would get 'paid' for the DoS-type attack. But it's certainly less administration/interface just to confirm upon receipt from the address in question.
I think it is a flaw in the bitcoin client that we can not easily (1) extract keys from our wallets and/or (2) send from specific addresses. It's supposed to be an 'anonymous' currency but all these simultaneous splitting/merging transactions blows any cover or even just managing 'accounts'. I have a dozen wallets for these types of manipulation... but I digress.
Great work. A+
Suggestion is to pay to register a name with an address that shows up on your site.
I 'own' "187g". when someone asks for my address to pay, I would say "Bob's lemonade stand at '187g' ", and it is confirmed on your site with the full address: 187G5EpRm7rYs6M7X5QDEZpqvw5iVQvXtF and "Bob's Lemonade Stand".
"1mtbk" would show up as "Meze Grill", etc
Suggestion is to pay to register a name with an address that shows up on your site.
I 'own' "187g". when someone asks for my address to pay, I would say "Bob's lemonade stand at '187g' ", and it is confirmed on your site with the full address: 187G5EpRm7rYs6M7X5QDEZpqvw5iVQvXtF and "Bob's Lemonade Stand".
"1mtbk" would show up as "Meze Grill", etc
That is a good idea. Do you think it is important to verify that someone actually owns the address to tag it? I see confusion being the worst 'attack' from buying someone's spot and putting something weird.
Anyone who wants to build stuff like this is more than welcome and I'll help make sure you get the algorithm exactly the same.
Some ideas:
Take a long list of addresses, return the firstbits in order of length or alphabetic or whatever.
Make a firefox or chrome extension that watches what you type and 'auto completes' a firstbits to a full address. You will need to type a terminal character for this to work. Ex: type "1hu56." and 1hu56Skwi99qmgnwRrQdd4TnMmwz8 shows up for you.
Web wallet like instawallet with built in firstbits conversion.
Don't allow to search for "Meze Grill", just the firstbits. I would think the owner of '1mtb' (who is not Meze Grill) might register "Meze Grill", but as long as the owner is aware, or registers a new address, he's fine.
I like the idea of paying 1 btc to register the name, firstbits sends back 0.90 btc to the address in question. firstbits gets the 0.10 fee.
Jump to: