Topic: MinAddress : Now remember your addresses easily - page 5. (Read 6796 times)

If vendors aren't concerned about privacy, they can always use fiat.

This is a major problem. However I would think that this would appeal to people who are not as concerned about privacy (for example a hotdog vendor accepting bitcoin for sales, or a charity).

I don't think this would appeal to the "average" user of bitcoin. 

I don't think it could work like that (otherwise you'd break copy and paste per my sig example) - I think that the symbol (being a : or something else) itself would imply that the 4 characters *before* the : are the last 4 from the address.

so: 1ciyamTeju:2adfd

(but is now starting to not be so "minimal")

Also I guess you could *repeat* the checksum characters like this:

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU:2adfdTejU

I thought about putting checksum however it will increase the address length and will be one more thing to remember so instead I am working on image verification for each address will post more details soon.

I did not miss it, you did not specify a syntax.  The syntax in your reverse order case would need to be something like:

1c:ju:2adfd  (head:tail:block) or in the original syntax 2adfd-1c-ju (block-head-tail)

It is how "to find" said vanity address that this addresses (not creating it).

Isnt this the same as vanity addresses or im missing something?

The thinking behind this is to make address (almost) mistake proof. So if someone changes the MinAddres 3fa5b-17yk to 3fa5d-17yk or 3fa5b-l7yk by mistake the chances of getting a full address is negligible.

I am trying to say that the issues which you have highlighted for address reuse are not very significant in case of Minaddress as people will be mostly be using these address for small transactions like tips/donations etc.

Well it does not matter if i like your opinion or not, I am just presenting my point of view and trying to find ways in which it can be improved.

Significant even in cases when the address in question will never have the total BTC transaction amount more than 1 BTC in its entire lifetime?

Ok so you agree that address reuse does not impose any threat to loss of bitcoin.

I guess you can post your private keys on this forum before you discard them so that atleast someone benefits from the bitcoins and they are not lost forever.

I have seen cases where people replaced capital letter with small letter or vice versa leading to incorrect address.


MinAddress can help in this case to an extent as a random change in MinAddress will most likely result in invalid error rather than giving a different full address.

Think you must have missed this:


Already thunk it!

But glad to see you agree with my suggestion.

BTW:  a simple change in algorithm would make these addresses almost as good as full addresses with respect to typographical error checking.  Just include part of the checksum area of the full address. In other words instead of just looking at the front of the address for the unique string look at both ends when calculating the unique matching pattern to publish.  Because this proposed minaddress now includes part of the checksum area the probability of a typo mapping to a valid address is even less.  So for 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU we might get something like 2adfd-1c-U as the unique minaddress.

Thanks - note that it is somewhat a "marketing issue" also (so I was trying to make it look nice while still working with good old copy and paste - including touch screens).

Vanity address, firstbits address and minaddress all in one.  Very sharp looking!

ok, will add this soon to minaddress.info

Your "edit" idea perhaps makes sense for the "web site widget" but won't work on a "billboard" (unless it is a digital "smart billboard" I guess).

Personally I would create a small wallet for such "tips" or use "coin control" to get rid of some small amount (perhaps another tip I got myself) but of course I get your point that for most people this would be "inconvenient" or "too difficult".

I think that both your and Danny's point with this is really that "publishing an address" is a bad idea full stop (as even if that address "changes with each tip/donation" someone can just monitor the website to keep a track of all such addresses that were given out taking you back to square #1).

In favour of the "short address" idea I have had at least one or two experiences in "buying BTC for cash" when "I did not have my computer handy" - in that case having either a "known public address" (or being able to find one easily with a "short name") was actually "the only way I was going to be able do the deal".

Exactly. Address reuse = privacy leak!

Since the address part can be extended so it was put later, but I agree some people will prefer this pattern so for them, this format can be implemented [keeping the original unchanged] by changing the - symbol to @ so your address will become :

1ci@2adfd or 1ciyam@2adfd or  1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU@2adfd

What do you think?

You are misunderstanding the privacy/fungibility issue especially with respect to static donation addresses or published static addresses of any kind.  It is not the privacy of the entity posting the static address that is the issue - by posting a static address easily tied to your identity you obviously don't care about your own personal financial privacy.  The issue at hand is the privacy of everyone who ever gives a donation to the easily identified transaction node you have created.  Now realize that since your easily identified node can be used to possibly compromise the identities of every other node that ever sends you a donation then by extrapolation every easily identifiable static transaction node reduces the overall privacy of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem.

Now, while this system wide loss of privacy is an issue in and of itself, it is the long term threat to the very fungibility of Bitcoin posed by this system wide reduction in privacy that most concerns me an others here.
  
Proper education should lead to the total demise of static addresses because properly educated people will never send BTC to any static addresses, thus making the publishing of static addresses of any kind obsolete.  In other words everyone who cares about the long term fungibility and therefore viability of this grand experiment should demand a new address for every transaction, every time.

All donation addresses should be, as you said, implemented by a widget that displays a new address every time it is hit.  All periodic payments (including and especially mining payouts) should be handled by deterministic payment address generation.  All Bitcoin users should demand a new address for every transaction.  In order to compensate for the sloppy privacy policies of others please use coinjoin or other coin mixing transactions when you must send to any static address.

[Edit:  Thinking about this donation address issue some more I think a possible solution would be to generate an xpriv/xpub key pair, create a widget based on the xpub key that displays the first Bitcoin address for the first public key in the sequence until that address receives a donation, then start displaying the Bitcoin address of the next public key in the xpub sequence, etc.  This way a new Bitcoin address is published until it gets used and once it gets used it gets retired.  The entity receiving the donations can then generate the entire private key sequence from the corresponding xpriv key when they want to spend the coins.  In the worst case a very small number of transactions would get sent to one address before the widget changes the donation address on the next page visit.]

End of PSA/rant, now back to our regularly scheduled thread...

Seriously? Do you think that someone needs to go to someone's website or contact them in order to just give a tip?

I can understand if you are offering a "service" that it would make sense but if you are just tipping someone for a great post then I do not see the harm at all.

Your MinAddress: 2adfd-1ci

You may also use 2adfd-1ciyam if you like

The issues I've highlighted are issues for small transactions like tips/donations etc.


Yes.


Yes, we are in agreement that the issues have nothing to do with loss of security.


I prefer to discourage re-use of bitcoins.  If I post my private keys, then the threat of the permanent loss of bitcoins from the economy is reduced.


This does not result in a valid address.  Unlike your MinAddress, bitcoins have a checksum built in to the address.  It is extremely difficult to make a typo and end up with a valid address.


A random change in a Bitcoin Address has a much lower chance of resulting in a valid address than a random change in a MinAddress.  The problem is, for example, when someone gives out an address and then later realizes that they took the address from the "sent transactions" section of their wallet instead of the "receive" section.