Vanity addresses behave the same as any other randomly generated address. It's the reusing part that can introduce risk, no matter how small.
Even Mt Gox reuses addresses. You could have it sweep a private key and it will keep doing that forever.
Topic: Vanity Addresses Are Stupid (Read 1263 times)
Vanity addresses are useless, but if some people like it, who would you refuse them the right to have it?
By principle, all used addresses can be compromised. It's still not easy.
If anything, we will find out, as the best addresses to compromise begin with 1dice...
If anything, we will find out, as the best addresses to compromise begin with 1dice...
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct.
Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose.
I'm guessing D&T was talking about reusing an address once outputs have been spent. The public key is then revealed. Only ECDSA has to be cracked then.
If an address has no spent outputs the public key is unknown because it is hashed twice. SHA256 then RIPEMD160. All three RIPEMD160, SHA256 and ECDSA have to be cracked to get private key then, making it more secure.
Most vanity addresses I assume are reused, thus weaker.
if you used electrum would any spend from any address leave the whole thing compromised
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct.
Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose.
I'm guessing D&T was talking about reusing an address once outputs have been spent. The public key is then revealed. Only ECDSA has to be cracked then.
If an address has no spent outputs the public key is unknown because it is hashed twice. SHA256 then RIPEMD160. All three RIPEMD160, SHA256 and ECDSA have to be cracked to get private key then, making it more secure.
Most vanity addresses I assume are reused, thus weaker.
I like the ones I created.
One is for donations, so it begins with 1food ...
One is for a game, so it begins with 1Lotto and 1Poker ...
One is for a gold coin raffle, so it begins with 1goLd...
They are all cold, so ... foolish? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.
One is for donations, so it begins with 1food ...
One is for a game, so it begins with 1Lotto and 1Poker ...
One is for a gold coin raffle, so it begins with 1goLd...
They are all cold, so ... foolish? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.
some time we need to do foolish things like this its good
I like the ones I created.
One is for donations, so it begins with 1food ...
One is for a game, so it begins with 1Lotto and 1Poker ...
One is for a gold coin raffle, so it begins with 1goLd...
They are all cold, so ... foolish? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.
One is for donations, so it begins with 1food ...
One is for a game, so it begins with 1Lotto and 1Poker ...
One is for a gold coin raffle, so it begins with 1goLd...
They are all cold, so ... foolish? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct.
Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose.
I was addressing the part about a vanity address undermining Bitcoin security and privacy. If you keep your funds at a vanity address you created, you have security/privacy.
Perhaps you can tell me who exactly owns which address. Please include their first, middle, and last name, DOB, and current physical address.
...
my point exactly...you can't unless the owner publicizes their vanity address.
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct.
Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose.
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct.
Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose.
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If that happens I wonder if the bitcoin network will survive. Any type of potential weakness will have a devastating effect in the confidence in the currency. 
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoin's security and privacy model. If a QC ever breaks ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you had one you would think it is cool.
This is the poor man's envy.
This is the poor man's envy.
Just one man's opinion.
Jump to: