is there any chance(although it is really low) that there is a coincidence of two addreses with this method?
I don't think so. I think the method is sound and will produce a one to one correspondence between MinAddress and full Bitcoin addresses. 
Topic: MinAddress : Now remember your addresses easily - page 2. (Read 6796 times)
@DannyHamilton and @BurtW I think your "black and white" view of things here doesn't reflect *the real world*.
I disagree. There is nothing but stubbornness and lack of education that is forcing *the real word* to re-use addresses.
If a newbie was given an address by Danny for Escrow and wrote it down and then thought he'd lost it so asked for another one but then accidentally ended up pasting in the first address seemingly Danny is now going to "burn his funds on principle".
And if they accidentally paste some other address that isn't mine from their clipboard? Either way they are pasting an invalid address. I haven't "burned his funds". He did when he chose (intentionally or accidentally) to paste the wrong bitcoin address from his clipboard.
IMO that is just silly and won't help the adoption of Bitcoin at all (and would likely end Danny's Escrow service).
IMO it is not silly, and deletion of used private keys is an important part of the security and privacy that my escrow service provides. My escrow is provided as a free service to the community. If people aren't comfortable with my practices, they are welcome to go elsewhere.
Sorry guys - but the world isn't black and white and you don't get to make the rules "just because you think a perfect world should work your way".
I agree, but you don't get to choose how I handle my private keys either "just because you think I should keep them".
In the real world people make mistakes and we all do our best to ensure that no-one is getting hurt needlessly (and I know this from the actual experience of nearly losing 100 BTC through a stupid mistake which luckily a pool decided to refund mostly back to me).
Yes, people make mistakes. Some of those mistakes can be expensive (sending to an incorrect address). Sometimes we get lucky and are able to recover from our mistakes without significant loss (paying an excessively high transaction fee).
I once had a vanity address that I used for everything, thought I was so cool. I will dig up the thread and even the specific posts by Greg Maxwell and Death & Taxes that convinced me that this privacy/fungibility issue is as important as I say.
In a nutshell the crux of the entire Bitcoin experiment is can we create and maintain a trustless decentralized currency? Decentralization meaning no central authority of any type. Dollars are fungible, diamonds are not. If someone pays you in dollars you can just accept them because a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. However if someone pays you in diamonds you do not know how much they are worth without appealing to a grading authority. Do you see where this is going? I suggest we have commandeered this thread long enough and we should move to another thread on the topic of how address reuse will enable and lead to the eventual destruction of the fungible, decentralized and trustless aspects of Bitcoin.
I will post a link to the thread later today when I find it again.
In a nutshell the crux of the entire Bitcoin experiment is can we create and maintain a trustless decentralized currency? Decentralization meaning no central authority of any type. Dollars are fungible, diamonds are not. If someone pays you in dollars you can just accept them because a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. However if someone pays you in diamonds you do not know how much they are worth without appealing to a grading authority. Do you see where this is going? I suggest we have commandeered this thread long enough and we should move to another thread on the topic of how address reuse will enable and lead to the eventual destruction of the fungible, decentralized and trustless aspects of Bitcoin.
I will post a link to the thread later today when I find it again.
is there any chance(although it is really low) that there is a coincidence of two addreses with this method?
@DannyHamilton and @BurtW I think your "black and white" view of things here doesn't reflect *the real world*.
If a newbie was given an address by Danny for Escrow and wrote it down and then thought he'd lost it so asked for another one but then accidentally ended up pasting in the first address seemingly Danny is now going to "burn his funds on principle".
IMO that is just silly and won't help the adoption of Bitcoin at all (and would likely end Danny's Escrow service).
Sorry guys - but the world isn't black and white and you don't get to make the rules "just because you think a perfect world should work your way".
In the real world people make mistakes and we all do our best to ensure that no-one is getting hurt needlessly (and I know this from the actual experience of nearly losing 100 BTC through a stupid mistake which luckily a pool decided to refund mostly back to me).
If a newbie was given an address by Danny for Escrow and wrote it down and then thought he'd lost it so asked for another one but then accidentally ended up pasting in the first address seemingly Danny is now going to "burn his funds on principle".
IMO that is just silly and won't help the adoption of Bitcoin at all (and would likely end Danny's Escrow service).
Sorry guys - but the world isn't black and white and you don't get to make the rules "just because you think a perfect world should work your way".
In the real world people make mistakes and we all do our best to ensure that no-one is getting hurt needlessly (and I know this from the actual experience of nearly losing 100 BTC through a stupid mistake which luckily a pool decided to refund mostly back to me).
Isn't any balance you have at the moment waiting to be stolen in the same way that my past used addresses are?
Perhaps, but if I give you an address and tell you to send bitcoins there, then whatever happens to those bitcoins is my responsibility and my loss. On the other hand, if you use a bitcoin address that you "assume" is still okay to use, then the responsibility and loss are much messier to figure out (unless of course I've always made it clear that you should never "assume" that an old address is okay to use, in which case it becomes much less messy).
On the other hand, what you said here:
seems just plain snippy.
note the fact that we all have a "btc address" field in our bitcointalk profile info.
Note that there isn't any btc address field when you look at my profile.seems just plain snippy.
Didn't mean for it to sound snippy. You used the phrase "we all have", and I was just pointing out that we don't all have it. The option is there because the site administrator hasn't forced the issue on others, but the fact that the website allows something doesn't necessarily mean that it is recommended (or even a good idea). Note that the website also allows users to buy and sell user accounts.
I referenced the btc address field of our profiles as evidence that your philosophy isn't necessarily shared by all (or even the majority).
I haven't seen a reliable unbiased poll that determines what the "majority" think about the matter or if they even understand it. I will agree though it is rather obvious that many choose to re-use addresses and some wallets even encourage it.
This seems like hyperbole.
No, it really doesn't.hyperbole - exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
BurtW's statement:
Quote
Address reuse is the single largest internal threat to the long term viability of Bitcoin. It is the single largest threat that we can do something about within the Bitcoin community. ...
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
This is not exaggerated and is meant to be taken literally.
Pretty nice idea. Sure, there's the re-using issue, but many people don't re-use anyways (webwallets anyone).
Furthermore, there are many applications of fixed-addresses (businesses and charities for example).
Not sure though if this userbase it enough to make min-addresses a success. I would suspect that
it's an either-or issue - I don't want to check for every address into which format I need to convert
it, and how. If it's of course picked up automatically by all major clients, different topic.
The re-usage issue can maybe also countered with a client "registering" every address in the blockchain
before usage by sending a small amount to it. Hello blockchain bloat (but that seems to be the
latest trend in cryptoland anyways, unfortunately
)
Furthermore, there are many applications of fixed-addresses (businesses and charities for example).
Not sure though if this userbase it enough to make min-addresses a success. I would suspect that
it's an either-or issue - I don't want to check for every address into which format I need to convert
it, and how. If it's of course picked up automatically by all major clients, different topic.
The re-usage issue can maybe also countered with a client "registering" every address in the blockchain
before usage by sending a small amount to it. Hello blockchain bloat (but that seems to be the
latest trend in cryptoland anyways, unfortunately
) 
Address reuse is the single largest internal threat to the long term viability of Bitcoin. It is the single largest threat that we can do something about within the Bitcoin community. ...
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
This seems like hyperbole. Can you really link my reuse of a vanity address to a concrete threat on the longterm viability of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community?
Post #58 in this very thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8758673
Hi again BurtW. Thanks for the link to your "rant" on this topic. I admit I had to look up the meaning of "fungibility". I think I understand your argument that loss of privacy for one party is related to a loss of privacy for another party who transacts with the first. However, I don't yet see how this is generalized to the whole network. You say "by extrapolation", but I'm not convinced (yet). In principle, couldn't you have a situation in which some users are "tainted" in this way by recursively interacting with someone who is "tainted" but others who are not? Couldn't the careful among us (you'd obviously be in this group) avoid transacting with anyone who was tainted?
The second part of your argument was that loss of privacy leads to loss of fungibility. Can you show that connection more concretely? Maybe you already have in another thread somewhere else.
Cheers!
this is helpful for sure, thx for you nice work!
DannyHamilton,
I very much enjoyed your hypothetical scenario. I think you did a great job showing how misunderstanding, poor-communication, and/or false-expectation can lead to a mess in the general case and that an address no-longer controlled by the first user can cause problems whether or not the first user discarded it willingly or lost it to an attack.
I think your example also highlights a little more of why you feel so strongly about this. You see address reuse as a theft waiting to happen. I guess what I don't yet understand is how you can store your coins at all with such a philosophy. Isn't any balance you have at the moment waiting to be stolen in the same way that my past used addresses are?
On the other hand, what you said here:
note the fact that we all have a "btc address" field in our bitcointalk profile info.
Note that there isn't any btc address field when you look at my profile.
seems just plain snippy. If you did have an address in that field on your profile that would be an act of amazing hypocracy given your "Constitution". I referenced the btc address field of our profiles as evidence that your philosophy isn't necessarily shared by all (or even the majority).
This seems like hyperbole.
No, it really doesn't.
This remark is similarly terse and not really helpful. Care to elaborate?
By the way, has this happened to you?
Someone sent bitcoins to an address that is no longer under my control?
No.
Since you seem interested in hypothetical scenarios, lets consider this one:
- You re-use addresses all the time.
- People who send bitcoins to you are aware that you re-use addresses and don't think twice about sending bitcoins to an address they've used in the past
- You become victim to a hacker or malware and the addresses you've used in the past are no longer secure.
- You tell everyone that you can think of that they should not re-use any address that you've given them in the past
- Someone doesn't get your message, and sends bitcoins to one of your old addresses
- The bitcoins are moved out of the address by a thief before you can access them
Who is "responsible" for the loss?
You? Because you created an expectation in others that they could re-use your addresses?
The sender? Because they failed to confirm the address with you, and failed to receive the notice you had sent out?
Do they still owe you payment or not?
You might say that the address was hacked, and that they shouldn't have sent there, but how do they know if it was hacked? How do they know that they missed your message? Perhaps you moved the bitcoins out of the address, and then made up a story about the address being hacked?
This is a mess.
On the other hand, if you established early and often that addresses should never be re-used, then it becomes clear where the responsibility lies. If they send to an address that you give them, it is your responsibility. If they send to an address that you do not give them, then it is their responsibility.
note the fact that we all have a "btc address" field in our bitcointalk profile info.
Note that there isn't any btc address field when you look at my profile.
This seems like hyperbole.
No, it really doesn't.
Address reuse is the single largest internal threat to the long term viability of Bitcoin. It is the single largest threat that we can do something about within the Bitcoin community. ...
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
This seems like hyperbole. Can you really link my reuse of a vanity address to a concrete threat on the longterm viability of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community?
Post #58 in this very thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8758673
Minaddres.info takes the data from http://blockexplorer.com/ and blockexplorer is giving the below error [ http://blockexplorer.com/address/1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb ] for this address because of which it is not working.
Code:
ERROR: Address ledger is extremely large. Contact me if you really need the data.
Since my message was removed from BurtW's thread (it really belonged here anyhow):
So, MinAddress does not work for addresses that have sent&received a large number of transactions?
That doesn't seem very user-friendly. MinAddress encourages people to re-use addresses (since you don't even have a MinAddress until after you've received at least one transaction at the address), but then breaks if they use the address too much.
You might want to look into building your own database of MinAddresses rather than relying on an API from BlockExplorer.com
Yes I agree that it should not fail, but I dont consider building a database is a solution as database will be useful only for addresses which have been already used on the website. I have planned that if there is sufficient interest/support for this idea, i would run own bitcoin node/explorer and take data directly from there, but currently with limited interest/support I am not sure if it is worth it.
Anyways I am adding blockchain.info data as a backup to the website in case blockexplorer.com fails so that it can provide better service.
Discarding the private key of an address you've used seems to me like shooting yourself in the foot (and receiving the real-life consequences of that action) in order to adhere to an abstract principle that not everyone agrees with or thinks about.
I see it more as documenting a set of rules (call it a "Constitution" if you like) and committing myself to that set of rules along with any real life consequences of that committment.
I guess I'm saying that I can see this adding up to a lot of disputes and accusations. Imagine you send btc for a debt to someone who discards their old addresses in this way. You say "I sent you that money, same address I paid you at last week". Then the other person says "no, my policy is to discard addresses, I no longer have access to that address because I've discarded the private key".
I make it very clear to anyone that ever sends me bitcoins that the address they are sending to is only good for the one transaction and that NO FUTURE PAYMENTS to that same address will be honored or recognized. If they choose to ignore this information and re-send to an address they have sent to in the past, I can not stop them, but it will be very clear that they have made a mistake and have sent to an address for which there is no known private key. Such a payment will not (and cannot) be honored and the loss will be theirs.
As far as I can tell, you are putting a lot of risk on your ability to make this 'very clear to anyone who ever" sends you bitcoins. I have to admit, if I understood this before sending you money, I'd say "well that's fine and no problem, he'll send me an address when he wants payment". But if I didn't understand it beforehand, I think it would be hard for you to convince me that the loss was mine. I would question whether anyone in their right mind would actually purposefully throw away the private key of an address they had already received payment at. Your claims of constitution and principles would look very specious to me at that point.
At this point, you might (rightly, imho) doubt whether that person is being honest---what if they still have the key but are lying to you in order to trick you into paying them more than once. Obviously the fact that the bitcoins you sent are still in the address you sent them to would be evidence that the person hasn't yet tricked you, but is not evidence that they won't trick you as soon as you send again to a new address at your expense. I guess my point boils down to this: someone may say that they discard old private keys, but how can they prove this? (I don't think they can.)
Lack of access to a private key cannot be proven. However, if you've been told NOT to send to a particular address, and you send to that address anyhow, it is your choice and your loss. As you put it, if you send to an address that I have given you in the past after I have informed you not to do so, then you are "shooting yourself in the foot (and receiving the real-life consequences of that action)".
Seems like in this scenario, who ends up with the consequences would be hashed out in a public dispute. Perhaps the payer decides you are trying to scam and doesn't send again, perhaps you then label that person untrustworthy. This example scenario is to vague and general to actually try to predict a specific outcome, but I think it's easy to see that it would be a mess. By the way, has this happened to you?
... in order to adhere to an abstract principle that not everyone agrees with or thinks about.
Where the abstract principle you are talking about is address reuse. I don't consider this an "abstract" issue.
I believe the abstraction lies in the fact that, as you say, the protocol doesn't enforce this. The community doesn't (as a whole) do this---note the fact that we all have a "btc address" field in our bitcointalk profile info.
Quote
Address reuse is the single largest internal threat to the long term viability of Bitcoin. It is the single largest threat that we can do something about within the Bitcoin community. ...
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
This seems like hyperbole. Can you really link my reuse of a vanity address to a concrete threat on the longterm viability of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin community?
... in order to adhere to an abstract principle that not everyone agrees with or thinks about.
Where the abstract principle you are talking about is address reuse. I don't consider this an "abstract" issue.
Address reuse is the single largest internal threat to the long term viability of Bitcoin. It is the single largest threat that we can do something about within the Bitcoin community. Address reuse should be discouraged by any and all means possible. Companies, individuals, charities, etc. who continue to reuse addresses should be boycotted until they change their ways. Deterministic key pair generation should be used for all periodic payments, all donation addresses, all mining pool payouts, and all other times when multiple payments are made from one entity to another entity.
Ideally all addresses would be used only once and contain only two transactions: a single funding transaction followed by an eventual single spending transaction. All change should go to a fresh address every time.
I wish the protocol enforced these rules. If it were possible to make this change it is the only change to the protocol I personally would support at this time.
Discarding the private key of an address you've used seems to me like shooting yourself in the foot (and receiving the real-life consequences of that action) in order to adhere to an abstract principle that not everyone agrees with or thinks about.
I see it more as documenting a set of rules (call it a "Constitution" if you like) and committing myself to that set of rules along with any real life consequences of that committment.
I guess I'm saying that I can see this adding up to a lot of disputes and accusations. Imagine you send btc for a debt to someone who discards their old addresses in this way. You say "I sent you that money, same address I paid you at last week". Then the other person says "no, my policy is to discard addresses, I no longer have access to that address because I've discarded the private key".
I make it very clear to anyone that ever sends me bitcoins that the address they are sending to is only good for the one transaction and that NO FUTURE PAYMENTS to that same address will be honored or recognized. If they choose to ignore this information and re-send to an address they have sent to in the past, I can not stop them, but it will be very clear that they have made a mistake and have sent to an address for which there is no known private key. Such a payment will not (and cannot) be honored and the loss will be theirs.
At this point, you might (rightly, imho) doubt whether that person is being honest---what if they still have the key but are lying to you in order to trick you into paying them more than once. Obviously the fact that the bitcoins you sent are still in the address you sent them to would be evidence that the person hasn't yet tricked you, but is not evidence that they won't trick you as soon as you send again to a new address at your expense. I guess my point boils down to this: someone may say that they discard old private keys, but how can they prove this? (I don't think they can.)
Lack of access to a private key cannot be proven. However, if you've been told NOT to send to a particular address, and you send to that address anyhow, it is your choice and your loss. As you put it, if you send to an address that I have given you in the past after I have informed you not to do so, then you are "shooting yourself in the foot (and receiving the real-life consequences of that action)".
it is an absolutely stupid idea to discard a private key.
That is an opinion, not a fact.My opinion differs from yours on that matter.
And differs from Satoshi's, too:
Quote
Oct. 3, 2010: Sigh… why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.
source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15136
It is your opinion that "it is an absolutely stupid idea".
Satoshi suggested that keeping an old copy "just in case" was something to consider. It appears, at least at the time of that post, to have been his opinion that "You should never delete a wallet", though he doesn't seem to have made a value judgement on the intelligence of someone (like you did) that chooses to delete the wallet.
Why does the address 18uTXyQubfaYrkbQDdaXhzd2ALEY5YN77B not work?
It working now, due to large number of transactions in the block, it was hitting the max file size, I have updated it so that it works properly, sorry for inconvenience.
Regards
Would this also be the issue for: 1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb
As this address does nit work?
Thx
https://blockchain.info/address/1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb?offset=6700&filter=0 (talk about address reuse! I expect the massive number of transactions to this one single address, 6726, is probably what is causing the issue)
https://blockchain.info/tx/ea4f4e7a572348ea732229a5f7e618ed10d8dd8e298c434a0ec0332d91ddd227 (looks pretty standard to me)
https://blockchain.info/block-index/306124 (only 30 transactions)
https://blockchain.info/block-height/243752 (I see nothing strange)
Why does the address 18uTXyQubfaYrkbQDdaXhzd2ALEY5YN77B not work?
It working now, due to large number of transactions in the block, it was hitting the max file size, I have updated it so that it works properly, sorry for inconvenience.
Regards
Would this also be the issue for: 1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb
As this address does nit work?
Thx
Minaddres.info takes the data from http://blockexplorer.com/ and blockexplorer is giving the below error [ http://blockexplorer.com/address/1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb ] for this address because of which it is not working.
Code:
ERROR: Address ledger is extremely large. Contact me if you really need the data.
Update: Anyways the minaddress for 1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb is 3b828-1qh [calculated manually] and you can use Minaddress.info to get full address for it.
Quote
And differs from Satoshi's, too:
Sorry, could you explain me what does the word "never" mean in this context? Quote
Oct. 3, 2010: Sigh… why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.
I am not native English speaker and I am very afraid of misunderstanding.
Does it mean 1000 years? Or 100 years? Should I leave my wallet to my childs and ask them to keep my private keys? How will I check that they obey my orders after my death?
it is an absolutely stupid idea to discard a private key.
That is an opinion, not a fact.
My opinion differs from yours on that matter.
And differs from Satoshi's, too:
Quote
Oct. 3, 2010: Sigh… why delete a wallet instead of moving it aside and keeping the old copy just in case? You should never delete a wallet.
source: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15136
Yes, it's a bad idea to re-use address, but it is an absolutely stupid idea to discard a private key.
I would not call it stupid. I would call it very dedicated. He is dedicated to forcing people to stop reusing addresses, at least when dealing with him. If everyone did this there would be no address reuse. Sure some BTC might get lost along the way but pain is a very effective teacher. People would learn through the pain of losing BTC when they reused an address that reusing addresses is bad and wrong and they would stop doing it.Discarding the private key of an address you've used seems to me like shooting yourself in the foot (and receiving the real-life consequences of that action) in order to adhere to an abstract principle that not everyone agrees with or thinks about. I guess I'm saying that I can see this adding up to a lot of disputes and accusations. Imagine you send btc for a debt to someone who discards their old addresses in this way. You say "I sent you that money, same address I paid you at last week". Then the other person says "no, my policy is to discard addresses, I no longer have access to that address because I've discarded the private key". At this point, you might (rightly, imho) doubt whether that person is being honest---what if they still have the key but are lying to you in order to trick you into paying them more than once. Obviously the fact that the bitcoins you sent are still in the address you sent them to would be evidence that the person hasn't yet tricked you, but is not evidence that they won't trick you as soon as you send again to a new address at your expense. I guess my point boils down to this: someone may say that they discard old private keys, but how can they prove this? (I don't think they can.)
Jump to: