Topic: offline address - or a way to explicitly freeze an address - page 2. (Read 2619 times)
And, don't worry. I am not trying to give someone else the authority to freeze all your addresses. If they can freeze your address, then they also can also spend your money. Means, you need original private key to freeze an address.
> The part I don't understand is how you think
> you can "freeze" an address without "lots of
> code changes"
Frozen or not is just 1 bit detail, I hope this is possible through 'script'ing, so requires zero or minimal change. Just we need to check whether address is frozen before proceeding with sign validation. Yet, I am not very sure.
> why you think "surely it wouldn't require a
> hard fork".
I am suggesting that this can be implemented as specialized freeze/unfreeze transaction, or through a new flag in usual transactions. Either ways, this is going to be a new transaction with a fee. We are not going to redo all the hashing from Genesis block.
> I also don't understand why you think that
> "address keep changing" with 2-of-2
> multisig.
This again for the emotional attachment with the random bits. I want to include compromised address as one of multisig address. Now, I have to let everyone know my new address. When this address gets compromised, or every time I want to use different key to sign, then I have to create another multisig address.
This way also, I cannot use one address forever.
> you can "freeze" an address without "lots of
> code changes"
Frozen or not is just 1 bit detail, I hope this is possible through 'script'ing, so requires zero or minimal change. Just we need to check whether address is frozen before proceeding with sign validation. Yet, I am not very sure.
> why you think "surely it wouldn't require a
> hard fork".
I am suggesting that this can be implemented as specialized freeze/unfreeze transaction, or through a new flag in usual transactions. Either ways, this is going to be a new transaction with a fee. We are not going to redo all the hashing from Genesis block.
> I also don't understand why you think that
> "address keep changing" with 2-of-2
> multisig.
This again for the emotional attachment with the random bits. I want to include compromised address as one of multisig address. Now, I have to let everyone know my new address. When this address gets compromised, or every time I want to use different key to sign, then I have to create another multisig address.
This way also, I cannot use one address forever.
No one else will do it. Not one of the main developers will also do it, when it's as easy as using a brand new or different address. Any address that can receive coins will be able to spend it if you have the private key.
Ok, here's an example,
- snip -
You got the problem now?
- snip -
You got the problem now?
Yes, I've understood that you have a sentimental attachment to a random string of letters and numbers that happens to match a particular pattern that you like. I've also understood that you are concerned about the private key associated with that string of characters being compromised. This isn't the part that I don't understand.
The part I don't understand is how you think you can "freeze" an address without "lots of code changes" and why you think "surely it wouldn't require a hard fork". I also don't understand why you think that "address keep changing" with 2-of-2 multisig.
The stuff you're saying doesn't make sense. I simply can't take anything you say seriously if you can't explain it in a way that makes sense. Either you don't understand how bitcoin works, or I don't understand what you are suggesting. (Maybe both?)
Ok, here's an example,
Let's say you own firstbits address, '1Hamilton'. You spent lot of time, effort and money to generate it and you are happy to use this address for all your transactions.
At some point of time, you doubt your firstbits private key was stolen / compromised. Now only option for you is to stop using it. Would that be OK for you?
How about satoshi loosing his, firstbits '1'?
You got the problem now?
The stuff you're saying doesn't make sense. I simply can't take anything you say seriously if you can't explain it in a way that makes sense. Either you don't understand how bitcoin works, or I don't understand what you are suggesting. (Maybe both?)
tl;dr: No.
Simply,
- an address can be frozen for spending
- can keep one address without worrying about loss of its primary key
- first primary key is protected by second primary which can be changed as and when required
- second primary key is only used for lock / unlock (freeze / unfreeze) first address
It is not the same as m*n key because,
- with m*n, address keep changing, so cannot use one address for all transactions
It would require a huge rework of the Bitcoin code, and introduce a hard fork to the blockchain.
I am sure it wouldn't require lots of code changes. With some (lot) effort, I can implement all this myself. Real question is should we implement this, and what benefits it bring to the Bitcoin ecosystem.
And, no, surely it wouldn't require a hard fork, and this 'freeze' transaction is not meant to change already created blocks. It is only for new blocks (of course old addresses already in the block can also be used), it will also include transaction fees.
We still offer it. lbaat.net. Although not sure it would satisfy what you are trying to accomplish
It would require a huge rework of the Bitcoin code, and introduce a hard fork to the blockchain. What you mentioned can be done by using a time-based 2-part signature service, much like TTBit was offering some time ago, but a more practical and secure way would be to generate the address using some offline utility like Vanitygen and print the keys out.
tl;dr: No.
tl;dr: No.
Exploring 'script', and checking possibilities to define public address and firstbits-like shorthand notation (say 'secondbits') outside block chain. With this, I can keep one shorthand address notation and associate it with any public addresses.
And, I have to do this in a way that users don't have to trust 'secondbits' provider.
And, I have to do this in a way that users don't have to trust 'secondbits' provider.
You can simply leave the private key of your vanity address in an offline client such as Armory. Locking private key X with private key Y gives you no extra security than 2-of-2 multisig with X and Y
No, I have already imported it to my Blockchain.info wallet. Again, addresses generated offline is not the same as 'frozen' addresses. 'Frozen' addresses only receive, and will not spend funds.
With 2x2 scheme receiving addresses keep changing.
May be I should put less emphasis on addresses, and throw away old addresses, after all it is free. But, I prefer to keep it forever.
You can simply leave the private key of your vanity address in an offline client such as Armory. Locking private key X with private key Y gives you no extra security than 2-of-2 multisig with X and Y
when I was reading through bitcoin.it, I found some concepts related to this 'offline / frozen address' do exist with bitcoin eco-syatem; like, nlocktime, exit address and contracts.
Now something similar to offline addresses mentioned above, can be done using multi-sign addresses, but in this case, new address keep changing, so it is not possible to use single address for receiving funds forever.
Now to answer an important question, when address creation is so cheep why you want to use one address forever? well, I got my firstbit addresses (1vijay and 1visu) and I don't want to loose it. Using one address as main address for all transactions, and protecting with second set of keys for freeze / unfreeze purposes, is preferable in many cases.
Now to answer an important question, when address creation is so cheep why you want to use one address forever? well, I got my firstbit addresses (1vijay and 1visu) and I don't want to loose it. Using one address as main address for all transactions, and protecting with second set of keys for freeze / unfreeze purposes, is preferable in many cases.
It is not useful because if you had a "locked" address and also the authority to "unlock" that address, then basically it would be the same as having the private key.
but with the ability to change second "unlock" key will be useful in many cases. so the first address remains safe always, and can receive money even when it was locked.
I still believe this kind of address freezing is the bestest safest way to store / exchange coins.
I will try to explain it further.
I will try to explain it further.
Why you think it is not useful, or can't be done?
No. This can't be done.
Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do. Sorry.
Transactions in bitcoin simply don't work they way you think they do. Sorry.
Good question. I am not planning to freeze my second key, instead I will change them as I prefer. I mean I will freeze with third key, and then unfreeze with second key, so now I would need only third key to unfreeze my address. One unfreezed, now I can use my first private key to spend btc. Immediately after spending I will freeze my address again with third or another new key (4th).
If somehow we can implement this to blockchain, then it would really be useful for everyone.
If somehow we can implement this to blockchain, then it would really be useful for everyone.
Jump to: