Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39423BE7 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:24:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 876481A0 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b189so16162468wmd.4 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:24:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ExqNO6xhjokEsw9mOTOBbAkeSw/5V71FYYzdJWekp/M=; b=oGjTKNYmm4T/H0rxlt0+F4P7gkuEJT9xlXSOLEdS+PgmUdjXg9m1tvYvBMGFN4Wa6n 3iingAgbJ99YI+Nl6fMnFRzz8ZKfy/thN/+UizG6xHhE6/OC78W+snVxNq7MCNNIk2uT k01epqJY87PTeViT18hEXrs1Rt0M0V+49aTzh4uXJZiINpvsFge+hwLIZJIh8vQP/nxP OTW6nGDCxmplF7Y2U7FaCEJ1mzwuxRlSpSdf/iMjE0B9NawA3JiNwJSDngMFlwYpakIF WQMsIctTIiTWI2jL4dTQPQuDgnvQFyGoWWZa7YOPErTA+vR+MuxQEaqAJl7xGWFda6Is S9mQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ExqNO6xhjokEsw9mOTOBbAkeSw/5V71FYYzdJWekp/M=; b=TyrYPee1VR/mOBlBWGUXv3e3beTk5CcVeA6SZex/uo4+RTea/5EZjrA4evtD1KRzWR C0edlBajEk/B/hJSSLtaegYwqztZ3wbLeiBp896BlMBuoiQgoVCOGA6JqU0pItYAgg8M kD4J2QN8KPnyty7eYMpts2mR6JS00byyCs9xEF6cmnh/WDO5xy5ByF88WAAHCTAIDLou h52homWgA3SECt3fJXyM6SsrRqzPNQc4flRhZXjnWidzS/JBy8jQta4bmLxX5WNQ4UMO xROx0ySYfnqI+H2HWXaFQLRJHngaYl8H0X0pCOiC2tWv0L1FJHI3VZ5sv/w/XtubAnLs iEww== X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWptcwJ8arWprcxUdKXjMBdlwCGn5Zdr+P57r5KhTy0I/0c8Fo0 3UorVbdcINmPXiRPhxDh5KOhgWzH2zyENsmMRbt7cA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QVE0QM2iChIrjsqr9lB/cnvtLK+Spm+Vs8DkyVV5H1hWrIvoP3SFgyZSIfcJJFc3Ks/mydwbxGTeINLZryvpk= X-Received: by 10.80.143.98 with SMTP id 89mr11896373edy.273.1509373442232; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:24:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ben Thompson Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:23:51 +0000 Message-ID: To: Ricardo Filipe , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19516cdb9701055cc46376" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:38:35 +0000 Cc: shiva sitamraju Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Visually Differentiable - Bitcoin Addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:24:04 -0000 --94eb2c19516cdb9701055cc46376 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The last few bytes can be generated to be the same also. On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 14:20 Ricardo Filipe via bitcoin-dev, < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > start double checking the last few bytes instead? > > 2017-10-30 8:56 GMT+00:00 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev > : > > Hi, > > > > When I copy and paste bitcoin address, I double check the first few > bytes, > > to make sure I copied the correct one. This is to make sure some rogue > > software is not changing the address, or I incorrectly pasted the wrong > > address. > > > > > > With Bech32 address, its seems like in this department we are taking as > step > > in the backward direction. With the traditional address, I could compare > > first few bytes like 1Ko or 1L3. With bech32, bc1. is all I can see and > > compare which is likely to be same anyway. Note that most users will only > > compare the first few bytes only (since addresses themselves are very > long > > and will overflow in a mobile text box). > > > > Is there anyway to make the Bech32 addresses format more visually > distinct > > (atleast the first few bytes) ? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --94eb2c19516cdb9701055cc46376 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The last few bytes can be generated to be the same also.


On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 14:20 = Ricardo Filipe via bitcoin-dev, <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
<= /div>
start double checking the last few byte= s instead?

2017-10-30 8:56 GMT+00:00 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> Hi,
>
> When I copy and paste bitcoin address, I double check the first few by= tes,
> to make sure I copied the correct one. This is to make sure some rogue=
> software is not changing the address, or I incorrectly pasted the wron= g
> address.
>
>
> With Bech32 address, its seems like in this department we are taking a= s step
> in the backward direction. With the traditional address, I could compa= re
> first few bytes like 1Ko or 1L3. With bech32, bc1. is all I can see an= d
> compare which is likely to be same anyway. Note that most users will o= nly
> compare the first few bytes only (since addresses themselves are very = long
> and will overflow in a mobile text box).
>
> Is there anyway to make the Bech32 addresses format more visually dist= inct
> (atleast the first few bytes) ?
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--94eb2c19516cdb9701055cc46376--