Topic: MinAddress : Now remember your addresses easily - page 6. (Read 6796 times)

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU:2adfd

Hmm... you could put part or all of the normal address checksum in the MinAddress like the above.

MinAddress will use one to one correspondence between MinAddress and Full Address to make the MinAddress mistake proof [to be implemented]. So that MinAddress can have 3 levels of checks,
>Block must exist
>Address must be uniquely present in block
>Block should be the first block where the address was used.

Thus one full address will always have one MinAddress.


I think this issue is put here out of context. "I can say no one should create more than one bitcoin address as it increases the chance of address collision by 100% compared to if the user has one bitcoin address". It is true but does not matter as the the base value is so small that even a 100% increase results in insignificant value. Similarly this service is aimed at new users who find the wallet address too long / users who need to carry out random small transactions and need an address handy / users who cannot/donot like using QR code so need a easy way to type the address and so on. This service is not for users who make large bitcoin transactions on a regular basis. I dont think address reuse poses any serious security or fungibility issue in this case.

Also I would like to know the number of users ( if any as I am not aware) who have lost bitcoins due to address reuse. We all know a lot of users have entered incorrect address at one time or other leading to loss of bitcoins.

Not bad. Will try it..

@DannyHamilton

You seem to have missed the "tip address" argument to "address re-use" - if people had to go to a website in order to get a unique address to "send a tip" then very few people would ever actually get a tip (and I have had a few sent to my 1ciyam address over the years).

Another variation of the "tip address" is the "billboard sign" one (yes you could also put a QR code there but if the person doesn't have a camera then with this they can still "jot down the address" to find the full address later).

I just don't see the benefit of this requirement.  Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but that seems overly restrictive.  I prefer BurtW's recommendation that the rules dictate how to get a Bitcoin address from a MinAddress, and not the other way around.


I don't see the analogy.  I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.


My statement has nothing to do with "large bitcoin transactions on a regular basis".  I stated my opinion.  Clearly you don't like my opinion, but I never expected you to like it.  If you did, you wouldn't have created this MinAddress in the first place.


You are mistaken. Address re-use significantly reduces both privacy and fungibility.




Who said anything about losing bitcoins.  The issue is lost privacy, and lost fungibility.  Not lost bitcoins.

That being said, there are people that have made false assumptions about "sending addresses" and attempted to re-use those to send bitcoins to someone that they previously received bitcoins from. This has resulted in lost bitcoins.

Furthermore, if anyone ever re-uses an address that they used in the past to send bitcoins to me, the bitcoins WILL be lost, since I delete the private keys after I spend the bitcoins that were received at an address.

For that matter, now that I think about it, I have seen people report that they accidentally re-used an address from an old wallet that they no longer had and wanted to know if there was a way to recover the bitcoins. I guess it happens after all.


Yes, but I don't know of a single one that lost bitcoins due to a typo. Every one of them that I know about lost bitcoins due to either:

• Using copy and paste and not realizing that they had the wrong address in their clipboard
• Being given the wrong bitcoin address by the receiver
• Misunderstanding which address they were supposed to use when presented with multiple addresses to choose from

MinAddresses will not solve any of these three issues.  It might make it a bit easier to tell someone an address vocally, and they may be able to write it down with pencil and paper a bit faster, but if they are given the wrong address, or choose the wrong address from multiple choices, or copy and paste an address that is sent to them, then they will be just as likely to have a problem with MinAddress as they would with traditional addresses.

Let me know when it is added and I'll even change the address in my sig to include it.

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU:2adfd

Nicer but @ might get confused with email - perhaps $ instead?

(or if $ is going to be controversial then ! or : would be okay)

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU!2adfd
1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU:2adfd

I think 1ciyam-2adfd would probably "look nicer" myself.

that way I can change my "sig" to look like this:
1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU-2adfd

This is something I would agree with and for simple "tips" or "donations" it is always going to be easier to have an address link in your sig vs asking people to contact you (or use a website) in order to get a never used before address from you.

BTW - what would my 1ciyam firstbits address look like with this scheme?

Since the protocol for creating a MinAddress is open and publicly known, competition would prevent any particular service from significantly overcharging.  MinAddresses could even be built into wallets if they become popular.

Personally, I don't like the idea of re-using a bitcoin address, at all, ever.  Therefore, I find that the MinAddress would be useless to me, and would interfere with the fungibility of bitcoin if it becomes popular.  As such, I hope this idea fails.  However, if it does fail it won't be because of a service charging to much for it or because of security issues.


You're misunderstood.


No.

This would be very difficult to do.

You would need to predict ahead of time which addresses would become popular before they become popular. You would need to see the address as soon as it is used in a transaction and before that transaction is confirmed. Then you would need to create a vanity address that is similar to that address before the transaction confirms.  You would then need to send a transaction to your newly created vanity address and your transaction confirmed in the exact same block as the transaction with the address that you are trying to spoof.

Even if you manage to do all that, the user of the MinAddress could create a new transaction, get it confirmed in a new block, and use the new block as the first part of his MinAddress.  This means that you'd need to monitor every address that you ever want to try to copy and make sure that every time any of those addresses receives a transaction, you get a transaction to your spoof address confirmed in the same block.
 


Since the creation of the address is an open and publicly known protocol, it would be possible for many services to all create identical addresses.  Furthermore, it would be possible for wallet software to create MinAddresses if they become popular.  As such, you wouldn't be forced to rely on any particular service to be trustworthy.

I think the one to one correspondence between MinAddress and Full Address can be used to make the MinAddress mistake proof. MinAddress can have 3 levels of checks,
>Block must exist
>Address must be uniquely present in block
>Block should be the first block where the address was used.

The three level of dependencies will ensure that if MinAddress is misspell it will lead to an error rather than some other address. Though this is not 100% full proof but it will make the chance of random change leading to a valid MinAddress very very low.

Unfortunately, if you got someone "shortening" or "rerouting" your addresses, then it should have a similar effect to what the bit.ly URL shortening services has on your link, that is, their piece of the $$$

Please correct me if I'm misunderstood, is this a security flaw?

You would likely have a lot of people scamming by creating addresses that are similar to popular addresses to send money to. It would also make it easy for people to fall for this scam because they would be more likely to look up an address with this service rather then look it up and verify it independently

There is no security difference between a full Bitcoin address and the proposed MinAddress.  MinAddress is just a way to look up the full Bitcoin address in the blockchain so, same amount of security as the Bitcoin address itself.

There is just a small loss of error checking of the address itself but if you are careful then that is minor.

The whole point of a long address was increased security. Would you really be willing to exchange it for convenience?

I actually like this idea, but the shortened address is still not very easy to remember. If I have to copy it down or send it to someone via email, I could just use the full address.

Good point.  Carry on and good luck.

He was referencing several posts of mine.

Here is an example:



I include that paragraph (or one like it) whenever I provide anyone with a bitcoin address to send bitcoins to me.

This could not be farther from the truth.  This (and Firstbits) can easily be (are) implemented with out any reference at all to anyone's private keys.

This is true.  Address reuse is very bad for the long term viability of the entire Bitcoin experiment.