Topic: I want firstbits key pair for 1gig - page 4. (Read 8568 times)

I think that's a coincidence.

I'm leaving now before I ragequit this entire forum.

I'm like 99% sure I'm overreacting at this point, but I've reached the limits of how much idiocy I can take for one day. God I wish every forum had StackExchange-style downvote buttons, wouldn't have to say a damn thing, just click to show my dissent.

OP, is the fact that the address was used to mine block 44444 somehow important to you? You know, collectors item or something .

You're missing the point. OP wanted the firstbits 3GiG for an address (donation one, most likely). The only person who needs to know how to spend those funds is the OP (in fact, the only person who should know how to spend them is the OP). To the general public, the address is a novelty that only needs to be sent to (which Satoshi does support).

As far as 99% of the userbase is concerned, they're not usable until the standard client supports them via the GUI interface. An average Bitcoin user is not going to write a config file, launch the daemon, then use a series of archaic bitcoind commands to craft a super-duper-special transaction that has limited utility in its current implementation anyway - especially not if the sole cause for creating such a transaction is to use a vanity address starting with a "3". As they are currently implemented, multi-sig addresses are NOT usable by the VAST majority of users.


I corrected a statement by giving a valid assessment of the current implementation of OP_EVAL addresses and got pissed when some asperger's-addled moron decided to give the "correct" version of the facts which, despite being correct in the most technical sense, is still incorrect for practically every Bitcoin user in existence. By continuing to perpetrate this stupidity you are grossly misinforming other users about the current status of OP_EVAL transactions.

Was my original reaction a bit over the top? Definitely. My apologies if anyone was offended, I've just reached the limits of how much idiocy I can stand. I think it's time for a vacation from bitcointalk since every time I come here I nearly pop a vessel.

multi-sig address ARE usable right now.  You need all the private keys in the same wallet to spend coins sent to a mult-sig address but that doesn't make them unusable.  Limited utility true, but not usuable and certainly not "invalid".  

Vanity gen doesn't support finding multi-sig addresss but similar software could be written to generate mult-sig addresses matches a prefix by modifying the script and checking the generating address.  

Of course even these are tangents.   


TL/DR:
You "corrected" a statement that the address was valid by informing the person that it was "invalid" then got pissed and took it personally when corrected.

So you're confirming that your previous statements are
1) Prefixes of "3" indicate a multi-sig address
2) Using multi-sig addresses isn't really feasible right now
3) ? ? ?
4) Multi-sig addresses are totally valid despite being unusable...

 

OK, now it is a shit storm!

That is another thing nobody claimed was possible.  Tell me exactly where I can find gold for $0.20 per ton.

An address beginning with "3" is generated from the hash of a script. 

"1" address.   private key -> public key -> 1xxxxxxx address
"3" address.   script -> hash of script -> 3xxxxxx address

Then point me to where, exactly, in the standard client I can generate an M of N address beginning with that prefix. Oh wait, it's only available in the command line bitcoind interface, which practically no one uses.

Nobody said it was a standard address.
Nobody said it was generated by vanitygen.

Had you actually read the thread you would notice that all that had been discussed before you came along "helping" with 100% false statements.  Then you get made when corrected.  

This was the post you responded to:
That post was 100% accurate.

This was your post:

Your post is false.  You helped out by "correcting" a post which was already correct by providing an incorrect post.  Then got mad because someone informed you of the fact.   Yes it is a valid address.  Yes it can be used.  Yes it could (or one w/ same prefix) could be generated although not with the current version of vanitygen.

Another false statement.

If you would READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING POST you'd know that. It's not a valid standard Bitcoin Address. It's an OP_EVAL address, which (to my knowledge) vanitygen doesn't FUCKING GENERATE, the current Satoshi client DOESN'T FUCKING SUPPORT and therefore you'd be wasting your time even attempting to generate since despite being "valid" by the strictest of terms, it's not valid in any real functional way in that even though it conforms to the standard THERE'S NO ACTUAL WAY TO USE THE DAMN THINGS.

I'm so tired of the shit I get for trying to educate people on this forum. Seriously.

Um it is valid.  It happens to be an OP_EVAL address and OP_EVAL address ARE valid.  You go on to quote a reference indicating the "3" prefix are used for OP_EVAL addresses so how did you reach the conclusion it isn't valid?

No, it's genuinely not valid. The first digit of any given Bitcoin address is the "version byte."



A standard Bitcoin address will always start with a 1, testnet addresses start with a 2. Addresses starting with a 3 are OP_EVAL addresses (for a description of OP_EVAL addresses, check this Bitcoin StackExchange question/answer). The prefix tells Bitcoin how to handle transactions involving that address, so using an OP_EVAL prefix for a standard address could cause problems in interpretation - though I've never actually seen what happens if you actually try.

There are several other prefixes in use, often indicating that an address belongs to an alternate blockchain like Namecoin or Litecoin, as well as one prefix indicating that you're looking at a Bitcoin privkey.

While not every Bitcoin client performs proper sanity checks, they should require a destination address beginning with 1 or 3 and they should require a special form of signature to re-spend coins sent to an OP_EVAL address that I don't think the default client currently supports.

OK, my bad, corrected statement is probably:  Prefix '3GiG' not possible using the current version of vanitygen

I think he was just passing on a message from vanitygen

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

Touche

too much Gin is not good for healthiness!  

Oh and I want this address too!

1KaKAvriV1TGeM98PwwUQ2sMk8rJ7gdu1B

LOL!