summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/47/bf65c2f9d048dc53535299101e4c1271aef600
blob: 5e52afb221d95a299ab8e1ce9550fe652537b402 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
Return-Path: <ethan.scruples@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83D9AC0C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:39:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com
	[209.85.218.48])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02D11542
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:39:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id v9so22306699oif.13
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=zx7smN7eXzJMUXnD9AnryzPSUNNpBt09a9ez58j07Uw=;
	b=TkrA80Rg33Hv+Zg6EgeJ+CJ1X2wPWiJ5/0en4LkUMiNUr49EKF5FfOqqYhEahKcBiW
	3I0osQ20gDGw6xNYxFwIKwDAtctQGKiGtpal7kvtH1LQkgSraZsqo/q2eSLe9Bh5rXeK
	F7jqEco9hckFwhckn/J/jvMHJ0jku47EJhr+de7lDfgKFk+h6ycQ0rfVlxjpQAdvfH2f
	uMxna4e4UPve/dSIasi75+sJZg4M25EeUzuEUO3Gu+pHANRtfCAh7590Z1208a/jk83C
	lhl0zAoHmbnlqtwvMzkZBa3j8cco0r6SwsJ6Xanoh84/NF7bChrg4entXi9Acyr+OZ34
	+e9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=zx7smN7eXzJMUXnD9AnryzPSUNNpBt09a9ez58j07Uw=;
	b=YnjeObPnQ4cDu0pSZgBPiMGW+P9sPo6bzOJvmQ+7BIUWL0X4cunCwsXGLyBddfJJPM
	KYe/oNrzxd6aJZ99g0aRi24gO81hH5BAR5XYwjTdNSyOQj0Qx1eNuB7UIHkAyP+x6u4g
	7lNBVRxMDPFP8xrRSsLG1/g5+7u2u0I7tDSKASFvQo4mMn44q9sd/DTtSx+qcVRZWcGp
	8piWR899Wb+QTTFdgFh9KpVo9wDVq7wQ5Etuj6ZkoMsvLCcFh+cYiLbCnja5NMdxkrxY
	4wIIo9mE3kBqiahRZ0aJXiJkRYBcbSfbjQSOvzYKZi2nB7Ig8O3k+hBnhCgMLYVXGN20
	4plQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaWr/eUk3Tfsn8f7lIhiM8EJ5mTC6Xx5sNoNjP1edKJUSEPaae5F
	MdKi6SHFXXRbbQZhiUnsYC92i/V5fjct1Bm5ATKV9sYl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RdB1SbEg2u+mbRKqrmbcM3w5AtU2ueyePm2hhetqpfVJa48D3OOoi5lQONpZSsFSQq/9uPxiU8K2/CtjLVSLo=
X-Received: by 10.157.14.67 with SMTP id n3mr4991580otd.329.1509374348095;
	Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.68.169 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABuOfui=G_iSaKdeVZ=M_udg-DoqAVxCrHOZaHuSJze4+N7CLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABuOfujV1gAaSOKBB7S0_JKuwp+3iNhY5kN59F3LLndPENUA_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOxie=En8EqfuEtaPxH_v-2SYfUunudb4Zu0MQ-ZfEiPMxa6AQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABuOfui=G_iSaKdeVZ=M_udg-DoqAVxCrHOZaHuSJze4+N7CLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Moral Agent <ethan.scruples@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:39:07 -0400
Message-ID: <CACiOHGxYuqCONJzVm=zD2qkS4BR+Pvm9Ccofh_SCH-uzmW-LwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ddd50d9f756055cc4999f"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.3 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
	DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, LONGWORDS,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,TRACKER_ID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:43:04 +0000
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:39:09 -0000

--001a113ddd50d9f756055cc4999f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

If you are going to rely on human verification of addresses, the best way
might be map it to words.

For example, with a 6000 word list, a 25 byte address (with a checksum)
could be mapped to 16 words like this:

vocally           acquire        removed     unfounded
euphemism    sanctuary    sectional     driving
entree            freckles    aloof           vertebrae
scribble          surround      prelaw         effort

In my opinion, that is much faster to verify than this:

13gQFTYHuAcfnZjXo2NFsy1E8JGSLwXHCZ

or

bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3

Although I really do love Bech32.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:13 AM, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> For example bc1qeklep85ntjz4605drds6aww9u0qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6hak
> in 461e8a4aa0a0e75c06602c505bd7aa06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb00379d6 is 62
> bytes ! This is very very long. This will create lot of usability problems
> in
>
> - Blockexplorers (atleast user should be visually able to compare in a
> transaction having multiple outputs which one his address)
> - Mobiles
> - Payment terminals
>
> From my limited understanding, the purpose of inventing a bitcoin address
> format is for usability and ease of identification (versus a ECDSA public
> key), While I get the error/checksum capabilities Bech32 brings, any user
> would prefer a 20 byte address with a checksum  over an address that would
> wrap several lines !!
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ben Thompson <
> thompson.benedictjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Checking the first few bytes of a Bitcoin Address should not be
>> considered sufficient for ensuring that it is correct as it takes less than
>> a second to generate a 3 character vanity address that matches the first 3
>> characters of an address.
>>
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 11:44 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev, <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>
>

--001a113ddd50d9f756055cc4999f
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">If you are going to rely on human verification of addresse=
s, the best way might be map it to words.<div><br></div><div>For example, w=
ith a 6000 word list, a 25 byte address (with a checksum) could be mapped t=
o 16 words like this:<div><br></div><div><div>vocally =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 acquire =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0removed =C2=A0 =C2=A0 unfo=
unded</div><div>euphemism =C2=A0 =C2=A0sanctuary =C2=A0 =C2=A0sectional =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 driving</div><div>entree =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0freckles <span style=3D"white-space:pre">	</span>=C2=A0 =C2=A0aloof =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 vertebrae</div><div>scribble =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0surround =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0prelaw =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 effort</div></div></div><div><br></div><div>In my opinion, that =
is much faster to verify than this:</div><div><br></div><div>13gQFTYHuAcfnZ=
jXo2NFsy1E8JGSLwXHCZ<br></div><div><br></div><div>or</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>Although I really do love Bech32.</div></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:1=
3 AM, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div>For example bc1qeklep85ntjz4605drd=
s6aww9u0<wbr>qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6h<wbr>ak in 461e8a4aa0a0e75c06602=
c505bd7aa<wbr>06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb003<wbr>79d6 is 62 bytes ! This is=
 very very long. This will create lot of usability problems in <br></div><d=
iv><br></div>- Blockexplorers (atleast user should be visually able to comp=
are in a transaction having multiple outputs which one his address)<br></di=
v>- Mobiles<br></div>- Payment terminals <br><br></div>From my limited unde=
rstanding, the purpose of inventing a bitcoin address format is for usabili=
ty and ease of identification (versus a ECDSA public key), While I get the =
error/checksum capabilities Bech32 brings, any user would prefer a 20 byte =
address with a checksum=C2=A0 over an address that would wrap several lines=
 !! <br><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><d=
iv class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">O=
n Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ben Thompson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:thompson.benedictjames@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">thompson.ben=
edictjames@gmail.<wbr>com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-lef=
t:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Checking the first few bytes of a Bitcoin Address s=
hould not be considered sufficient for ensuring that it is correct as it ta=
kes less than a second to generate a 3 character vanity address that matche=
s the first 3 characters of an address.</div><span>
</span><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div class=3D"m_-354360230273966=
2677h5"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 11:44 shiva sitamraju via bit=
coin-dev, &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>=
</div></div></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=3D"m_-3543=
602302739662677h5"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>Hi,<br><br></div>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.<br><b=
r><br></div>With Bech32 address, its seems like in this department we are t=
aking as step in the backward direction. With the traditional address, I co=
uld 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 wi=
ll only compare the first few bytes only (since addresses themselves are ve=
ry long and will overflow in a mobile text box).<br><br></div>Is there anyw=
ay to make the Bech32 addresses format more visually distinct (atleast the =
first few bytes) ? <br></div></div></div><span>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
</span></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113ddd50d9f756055cc4999f--