Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UkYs6-0002eY-PU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:00:50 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmx.com designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=bytecoin@gmx.com; helo=mout.gmx.net; Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UkYs4-000188-NJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:00:50 +0000 Received: from mailout-eu.gmx.com ([10.1.101.212]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LtTty-1ULIi63YpQ-010wKP for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:00:42 +0200 Received: (qmail 15647 invoked by uid 0); 6 Jun 2013 12:00:42 -0000 Received: from 82.153.91.138 by rms-eu001 with HTTP Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="========GMXBoundary96681370520042104977" Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:00:42 +0200 From: "Byte Coin" Message-ID: <20130606120042.96680@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bitcoin Dev" X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: GMX.com Web Mailer x-registered: 0 X-GMX-UID: vRzCcaBEeSEqKDzgvnMhm8J+IGRvb4CB X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (bytecoin[at]gmx.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [212.227.15.18 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1UkYs4-000188-NJ Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] address collision and undependability X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:00:50 -0000 --========GMXBoundary96681370520042104977 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=20955.msg264038#msg264038 This may be an appropriate thread to mention that the the "checksum" at the end of an address does not effectively prevent single character errors or transpositions. For instance https://blockexplorer.com/search/1ByteCoin shows that 1ByteCoinAddressesMatch1kpCWNXmHKW 1ByteCoinAddressesMatch1kpCxNXmHKW are both valid addresses even though they only differ by one character. Similarly, the valid addresses 1ByteCoinAddressesMatchcNN781jjwLY 1ByteCoinAddressesMatchcNN718jjwLY only differ by one transposition. ByteCoin ----- Original Message ----- From: Melvin Carvalho Sent: 06/06/13 12:37 PM To: Bitcoin Dev Subject: [Bitcoin-development] address collision and undependability There was a discussion on #bitcon-dev yesterday I stated that it would be impractical to generate two bitcoin addresses, such that they differed in exactly one character (modulo different checksums). The corollary to this is that if you find an address with a verifiable signature. Changing one character of that address would have no known private key, and hence be normally undependable. Does that sound correct? --========GMXBoundary96681370520042104977 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From htt= ps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D20955.msg264038#msg264038

This may be an appropriate thread to mention that the the "checksum" at th= e end of an address does not effectively prevent single character errors or= transpositions.

For instance https://blockexplorer.com/search/1By= teCoin shows that
=C2=A0
1ByteCoinAddressesMatch1kpCWNXmHKW=20
1ByteCoinAddressesMatch1kpCxNXmHKW=20

are both valid addresses even though they only differ by = one character.

Similarly, the valid addresses
=C2=A0
1ByteCoinAddressesMatchcNN781jjwLY=20
1ByteCoinAddressesMatchcNN718jjwLY=20

only differ by one transposition.

ByteCoin

=C2=A0

----- Original Message -----

From: Melvin Carvalho

Sent: 06/06/13 12:37 PM

To: Bitcoin Dev

= Subject:= [Bitcoin-development] address collision and undependability<= /p>=C2=A0

There was a discussion on #bitcon-dev yes= terday
=C2=A0
I stated that it would be impractical to generate t= wo bitcoin addresses, such that they differed in exactly one character (mod= ulo different checksums).
=C2=A0
The corollary to this is that if= you find an address with a verifiable signature.  Changing one charac= ter of that address would have no known private key, and hence be normally = undependable.
=C2=A0
Does that sound correct?

=C2=A0

--========GMXBoundary96681370520042104977--