"way too lazy to deal with experimental software"
You shouldn't be using Bitcoin at all, then.
Diggin' the new avatar psy!
Topic: I want firstbits key pair for 1gig (Read 8568 times)
You shouldn't be using Bitcoin at all, then.
Diggin' the new avatar psy!
Quote
"Vanity addresses are a bad idea"?
They break the psuedo-anonymity of the bitcoin address scheme.this is only bad if you want to remain anonymous, if you don't want to be anonymous, by all means the more identification you can roll around in and cover your self with like dirt, the better.
OH ya, BTW! I am looking to buy the public/private key pair that was assigned the first bits of 1gig.
Inquire Within
Inquire Within
Just in case you don't realize, you'll have to trust this person forever to not spend coins sent to that address.
Very true. But I think we are getting to the point where agreements like this are going to have to happen. Not sure how. We are all writing the book as we go along.
Yeah, people are and will continue to trust each other for large amounts, but you're talking about trusting a completely random miner forever for some unknown amount of money and paying for the privilege.
If you always move funds out only one transaction at a time will be at risk, so that's something.
OH ya, BTW! I am looking to buy the public/private key pair that was assigned the first bits of 1gig.
Inquire Within
Inquire Within
Just in case you don't realize, you'll have to trust this person forever to not spend coins sent to that address.
Not only does he have to trust him but also trust he doesn't expose or publicize the info such that anyone else could do the same.
OH ya, BTW! I am looking to buy the public/private key pair that was assigned the first bits of 1gig.
Inquire Within
Inquire Within
Just in case you don't realize, you'll have to trust this person forever to not spend coins sent to that address.
Very true. But I think we are getting to the point where agreements like this are going to have to happen. Not sure how. We are all writing the book as we go along.
OH ya, BTW! I am looking to buy the public/private key pair that was assigned the first bits of 1gig.
Inquire Within
Inquire Within
Just in case you don't realize, you'll have to trust this person forever to not spend coins sent to that address.
OH ya, BTW! I am looking to buy the public/private key pair that was assigned the first bits of 1gig.
Inquire Within
Inquire Within
how this go from someone trying to buy a vanity address, to now we talking about what clever people use 3* addresses
I think this is what happens at the end of a thread. All that can be said on topic has been said (which really wasn't much) and increasingly off-topic posts, like this one, don't have any place to go but inline at the end...no sub-posting a la slashdot. 
"way too lazy to deal with experimental software"
You shouldn't be using Bitcoin at all, then.
So 3* addresses are usable by clever folk, not people like us 
Well I personally count myself in that "clever folk" category, but I also count myself in the "way too lazy to deal with experimental software" and "entirely too lazy to deal with git and a compiler when an executable is available" - either way, the effect is similar
Prefix '3GiG' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"
Are you sure?
How do you explain this address then?
https://blockchain.info/address/3A5XQWZPzG4GrpVeYFaDBZ1s4sXkYB69Wf
But don't let a fact get in the way of a strongly held belief
I'm not understanding how the 3 addresses aren't valid...their relation to op_eval, multisig, hashes of scripts, etc....but by this link it appears to me that a 3 address can both store Bitcoins and transfer them to a 1 address: https://blockchain.info/address/3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt
Now, please, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone...if you feel you might rupture an intracranial aneurysm, please stop reading and go see an interventional neuroradiologist or neurosurgeon.
OK so differentiating between "valid" and "usable" is a bit pedantic IMHO but let's go ahead and change the language we're using anyway. Whether or not they're valid, they're not USABLE. Let's see what happens if we try to send coins to 3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt with some various clients/services:
Blockchain.info wallet:
MtGox withdrawal:
BitcoinSpinner Android Client:
Bitcoin Wallet for Android by Andreas Schildbach:
I haven't had a chance to test with the Satoshi client yet since this is a work PC and I don't (can't) have Bitcoin installed on it, will update when I get home. At the very least I can say at this moment that none of the web-based or Android-based clients support this Bitcoin address version yet, which makes it largely unusable. I suspect that the 0.6.3 Satoshi client doesn't support them without special configuration either. Even if it does, none of the exchanges, eWallets or other services will send to such an address so it would only be usable in the one direction.
I suspect that all the 3* addresses in the blockchain folks are linking to as "proof" are live tests of OP_EVAL using experimental forks.
So 3* addresses are usable by clever folk, not people like us
Oh, and he couldn't get firstbits 3gig right now anyway since firstbits doesn't seem to support those address versions either:
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Blockchain.info is probably more popular and does support version 5 address firstbits.
I'll concede that, given that I had blockchain.info bookmarked and firstbits.com wasn't, but it just further makes the point that "coverage is spotty" for v5 addresses, spotty enough to make them largely unusable.
Oh, and he couldn't get firstbits 3gig right now anyway since firstbits doesn't seem to support those address versions either:
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Blockchain.info is probably more popular and does support version 5 address firstbits.
Oh, and he couldn't get firstbits 3gig right now anyway since firstbits doesn't seem to support those address versions either:
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Even if Firstbits doesn't yet support it - having the trx in the chain would mean someday if it were supported you would "own" it. Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Oh, and he couldn't get firstbits 3gig right now anyway since firstbits doesn't seem to support those address versions either:
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.
I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I just tried again. It went through.But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I just tried again. It went through.But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I just tried again. It went through. But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses. You get an error message on 6.3 anyway.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.
Prefix '3GiG' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"
Are you sure?
How do you explain this address then?
https://blockchain.info/address/3A5XQWZPzG4GrpVeYFaDBZ1s4sXkYB69Wf
But don't let a fact get in the way of a strongly held belief
I'm not understanding how the 3 addresses aren't valid...their relation to op_eval, multisig, hashes of scripts, etc....but by this link it appears to me that a 3 address can both store Bitcoins and transfer them to a 1 address: https://blockchain.info/address/3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt
Now, please, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone...if you feel you might rupture an intracranial aneurysm, please stop reading and go see an interventional neuroradiologist or neurosurgeon.
OK so differentiating between "valid" and "usable" is a bit pedantic IMHO but let's go ahead and change the language we're using anyway. Whether or not they're valid, they're not USABLE. Let's see what happens if we try to send coins to 3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt with some various clients/services:
Blockchain.info wallet:
MtGox withdrawal:
BitcoinSpinner Android Client:
Bitcoin Wallet for Android by Andreas Schildbach:
I haven't had a chance to test with the Satoshi client yet since this is a work PC and I don't (can't) have Bitcoin installed on it, will update when I get home. At the very least I can say at this moment that none of the web-based or Android-based clients support this Bitcoin address version yet, which makes it largely unusable. I suspect that the 0.6.3 Satoshi client doesn't support them without special configuration either. Even if it does, none of the exchanges, eWallets or other services will send to such an address so it would only be usable in the one direction.
I suspect that all the 3* addresses in the blockchain folks are linking to as "proof" are live tests of OP_EVAL using experimental forks.
Jump to: