Bitcoin Forum

Who owns 1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr (http://www.blockchain.info/address/1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr)?

I am interested in this address and the keypair that goes along with it.

Who owns this address?

A guy named satoshi. I'm his personal assistant. Why are you interested in this address?

Seriously?

I am interested in this address for vanity purposes.

Are you just wanting 1gig...anything or this exact whole address? You can create as many 1gig addresses as you want in less than 1 second each with the vanitygen program. It's easy to download and use on windows and on linux you need to compile it first.

(well, maybe a few second each on plain old cpu systems but on a decent gpu < 1 sec each)

I require this exact address for the whole intention of the 1gig firstbits. I do not want the firstbits of 1gig2 or 1giga.

I don't understand, you do or do not care about the characters after the firstbits?

First seen march of 2010. Coins were under 5 cents back then. My guess is those coins / private key are gone.

The coins are still intact.

I am interested in this entire address for the whole sake that the first bits is 1gig.

Looks like it was a mined block output on Mar. 8th 2010.
Good luck finding who owns it!
Some people back then didn't even bother saving their addresses/keys due to low value.

My point is that bitcoin in March of 2010 was thought of as an experiment. These coins were certainly mined on a CPU (Difficulty of 4).  People who generated a block didn't think about backing wallets, as the coins were worthless.

If someone who is not the original owner can get you the private key to that address, well, bitcoin is finished.
And would you use an address that someone else has the private key for? LOL

Well it would be cool if someone still had the private key!

Would 3gig be good enough for you?  Just curious.

there are addresses that start with 3?

It has been a while since I looked into it but a while back that was the designation for a script based address.  If still true then eventually there will be addresses that start with 3.  Others that keep up on these things more than I can answer the question.

This thread is silly.

why? It is possible there is some miner somewhere still active in bitcoins that mined that block, got those firstbits and hasn't had a need to use that specific 50btc input

of course, it may also be possible to generate a new 1gig address and ask firstbits to change 1gig to your one, making the case that you would actually use it.

that's ridiculous. e.g. sites like blockchain.info don't query this "firstbit database". there is a set of rules which determine the firstbit address and that's it.

what you think about is something like btc.to (http://btc.to)

Would you rely on firstbits if someone could change it?  Vanity addresses are a bad idea but firstbits only works if the addresses are deterministic.  1gig will always be the first address beginning with 1gig that had a tx in the blockchain.

I don't think that this is correct as I have created vanity addresses whose "firstbits" don't show up on blockchain.info until sometimes as many as 10 confirmations (which is when they seem to first appear on firstbits.com).

I cannot imagine it would be hard to add the ability to do as I said, and if I was running the site I would do it, But then, I would have had it from the start, to deal with copyright claims and the such which will come as bitcoins grow in popularity, if 1coke is already gone do you think coke would just allow me to list 1coke as an address that isn't theirs? not to mention if there was a demand I could monetise the registration of firstbits on top of the "ruleset"
And for something like 1gig that is useful to the OP but being taken up by an unused and possibly lost address... Its just silly to say "THEMS THE RULES"
I also never said blockchain.info queries firstbits, no idea what you are smoking with that one


If it is stuck on an unused account and changed to a used one, sure its fine to change them, in the case mentioned above where it could be monetised, "unregistered" firstbits would be listed as such, and subject to change should someone register it
"Vanity addresses are a bad idea"? and firstbits only work if the addresses are deterministic? what? ... please explain.

OK, I agree, now it is silly.  

But what ever happened to the addresses that start with 3? Did that BIP ever pass?  Is it deployed yet?  What is the schedule?

If I had the key and gave it to you, you would have to trust me to destroy it and not use it to steal your funds at some point in the future.

speaking of firstbits, someone reserved a shit ton of them with some common words back a year ago
http://blockchain.info/tx-index/1089526/92eef0f0a860e295001d0b4fbdcd5ffb49b60f08bd3a54215da9cfc67fd9d9e5

just found it by querying some of mine vangen addies. gotta move few satoshies to few that didn't show up yet.

Sooo.. with all the spam from people reserving "first"bits, how about creating a service for "second"bits? ;D

good point!

Who determines "stuck in an unused address"?  Say I have FirstBits address 1Crypto. I go to jail for 20 years but during those 20 years people keep sending funds to 1Crypto.  When I get out I learn that oops 19.9 years ago someone got 1Crypto changed to a different address.

Now lets make it more complicated.  Right now the way firstbit works is every client, website, user who uses firstbits SCANS the blockchain to find the first usage of an address matching the prefix.   There is no communication required to a central authority or a list of unregistered addresses.  

Say genuinely 1gig could be reassigned.  How do you notify every user on the planet using a variety of websites, exchanges, clients that 1gig not points to a different address?  What if some of those users are running clients which aren't updated?  They keep sending funds to the wrong address?

They break the psuedo-anonymity of the bitcoin address scheme.


deterministic as in from now until the end of time the "firstbit" of every single bitcoin address can be determined with nothing but an algorithm and the blockchain.  If addresses could be reserved, or assigned, or reassigned that wouldn't be possible. 

I know you are joking but I think other people do have this misconception that you "reserve" a first bit address.  You don't.  Every new address added to the blockchain can have their first bit address calculated based on a set of rules.

Simplistically to find the firstbit (F) for any address (A):
1) scan the blockchain for A.  If A is not in the blockchain or doesn't have 6 confirmations on its first tx then it has no firstbit.  F = null
2) Find the first tx of A and record the block number (b) that it occurs in.
3) Create the smallest potential firstbit pattern (f) for A.  f = 4 leftmost digits of A.
4) Scan the blockchain (from block 0 to block b) for any address which matches the pattern f.
5) If a match if found then add one digit to f and goto step 4
6) If no match is found then F(A)=f (the pattern f is the firstbit for address A)

D&T is right. There is no database for firstbits.
It is simply the first address found in the blockchain that fully matches the firstbit prefix (non case sensitive). An address is reserved by sending coin to it so that it gets included in a block.

I remember when FreeMoney first came up with the idea and made the site. It was right around the time I first heard of bitcoin. First described here,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=16217.0

Personally I'd go for 1gigabit. It's not in the chain yet and has a 50% chance of being found within 9 days on my mining rig. So that would cost me 3.69 BTC. Nah, not going to bother.

Silly would be... 1gigg1e - 50% chance in 6 hours and not currently in use.

I think my best one is 1e111.

One of my favorites that I own (but it dates me) is: 1xyzzy

It would require also finding and funding an address for 1gigabi first.  If you found a 1gigabitxxxxxxx address and funded it then it would be assigned the firstbit of 1gigabi.  Since finding a 1gigabi is less computationally intensive one could find an address with that prefix and send it a satoshi to act as a placeholder.  Luckily 1giga, 1gigab already exist otherwise they also would need to be found.

Incorrect.  Had a brain fart this morning.

If you put money on 1gigabit..... then you would automatically also have 1gigabi since it would be the first occurrence of the partial. You can always use more characters in your firstbit than needed as long as they match your real address.

Yep, my 1Freenode address covers a few other prefixes that weren't there when I generated it.

How long did that one take you to find?

Less than a day on a 3x5870 rig, I actually found 2 of them.

The only way a firstbits address can changeis a blockchain reorganization. Firstbits.com waits for confirmations because we don't want to tell you your firstbits until it's very solid, like Gox doesn't want to credit your account until so many confirmations, they have the coins, and your address has it's firstbits, we're just not telling you yet.

To be super clear. Firstbits.com or any other correct implementation (like blockchain.info) does not decide your firstbits, we just report what the algorithm comes up with after looking in the chain.  

There are 3-prefixed addresses in common use. For example, this one (https://blockchain.info/address/3A5XQWZPzG4GrpVeYFaDBZ1s4sXkYB69Wf). 3gig is not yet taken.

To add to what FreeMoney said, the firstbits of an address will never change, and the address related to a particular firstbits will never change.  The only exception to this would be if there was a major reorg of the blockchain (rewriting at least 7 prior blocks), but I think we would have more serious issues with Bitcoin to deal with if something like that were to happen.

Looks like I started a shit storm :) Good to know I am not the only one going nuts! :)

I emailed support@firstbits.com very early this morning. I guess it appears this guy has a day job :)

Shit storm?  You call this thread a shit storm?  Have you ever visited other part of this forum?  Lending for example?  This thread is a rational breath of fresh air!!!

Not sure why.  I think all of your questions have been answered.  What exactly do you want to know?

Nothing personal, but I don't trust firstbits any more than online wallets. Vanitygen is cool, but vanity really isn't my thing.

I don't think anyone should trust it any more than an online wallet, unless they calculate the firstbits themselves.

Hmmm... that might be a decent standalone app.  Given a block001.dat, calculate the firstbits of a given address.

And a block002.dat, don't forget.

Prefix '3GiG' not possible
Hint: valid bitcoin addresses begin with "1"

Vanitygen doesn't support 3 addresses AFAIK, because they use a different type of hashing. You're going to have to write your own program to do it.

I have said it before and I will say it again!

KAKA!

Oh and I want this address too!

1KaKAvriV1TGeM98PwwUQ2sMk8rJ7gdu1B

LOL!

too much Gin is not good for healthiness!  ;D

Touche

Are you sure?

How do you explain this address then?

https://blockchain.info/address/3A5XQWZPzG4GrpVeYFaDBZ1s4sXkYB69Wf (https://blockchain.info/address/3A5XQWZPzG4GrpVeYFaDBZ1s4sXkYB69Wf)

But don't let a fact get in the way of a strongly held belief ;)

I think he was just passing on a message from vanitygen

OK, my bad, corrected statement is probably:  Prefix '3GiG' not possible using the current version of vanitygen

No, it's genuinely not valid. The first digit of any given Bitcoin address is the "version byte."



A standard Bitcoin address will always start with a 1, testnet addresses start with a 2. Addresses starting with a 3 are OP_EVAL addresses (for a description of OP_EVAL addresses, check this Bitcoin StackExchange question/answer (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/what-is-op-eval)). The prefix tells Bitcoin how to handle transactions involving that address, so using an OP_EVAL prefix for a standard address could cause problems in interpretation - though I've never actually seen what happens if you actually try.

There are several other prefixes (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/what-is-op-eval) in use, often indicating that an address belongs to an alternate blockchain like Namecoin or Litecoin, as well as one prefix indicating that you're looking at a Bitcoin privkey.

While not every Bitcoin client performs proper sanity checks (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding), they should require a destination address beginning with 1 or 3 and they should require a special form of signature to re-spend coins sent to an OP_EVAL address that I don't think the default client currently supports.

Um it is valid.  It happens to be an OP_EVAL address and OP_EVAL address ARE valid.  You go on to quote a reference indicating the "3" prefix are used for OP_EVAL addresses so how did you reach the conclusion it isn't valid?

If you would READ THE REST OF THE FUCKING POST you'd know that. It's not a valid standard Bitcoin Address. It's an OP_EVAL address, which (to my knowledge) vanitygen doesn't FUCKING GENERATE, the current Satoshi client DOESN'T FUCKING SUPPORT and therefore you'd be wasting your time even attempting to generate since despite being "valid" by the strictest of terms, it's not valid in any real functional way in that even though it conforms to the standard THERE'S NO ACTUAL WAY TO USE THE DAMN THINGS.

I'm so tired of the shit I get for trying to educate people on this forum. Seriously.

Nobody said it was a standard address.
Nobody said it was generated by vanitygen.

Had you actually read the thread you would notice that all that had been discussed before you came along "helping" with 100% false statements.  Then you get made when corrected.  

This was the post you responded to:
That post was 100% accurate.

This was your post:

Your post is false.  You helped out by "correcting" a post which was already correct by providing an incorrect post.  Then got mad because someone informed you of the fact.   Yes it is a valid address.  Yes it can be used.  Yes it could (or one w/ same prefix) could be generated although not with the current version of vanitygen.

Another false statement.

Then point me to where, exactly, in the standard client I can generate an M of N address beginning with that prefix. Oh wait, it's only available in the command line bitcoind interface, which practically no one uses.

That is another thing nobody claimed was possible.  Tell me exactly where I can find gold for $0.20 per ton.

An address beginning with "3" is generated from the hash of a script. 

"1" address.   private key -> public key -> 1xxxxxxx address
"3" address.   script -> hash of script -> 3xxxxxx address

OK, now it is a shit storm!

So you're confirming that your previous statements are
1) Prefixes of "3" indicate a multi-sig address
2) Using multi-sig addresses isn't really feasible right now
3) ? ? ?
4) Multi-sig addresses are totally valid despite being unusable...

 ??? ??? ???

multi-sig address ARE usable right now.  You need all the private keys in the same wallet to spend coins sent to a mult-sig address but that doesn't make them unusable.  Limited utility true, but not usuable and certainly not "invalid".  

Vanity gen doesn't support finding multi-sig addresss but similar software could be written to generate mult-sig addresses matches a prefix by modifying the script and checking the generating address.  

Of course even these are tangents.   


TL/DR:
You "corrected" a statement that the address was valid by informing the person that it was "invalid" then got pissed and took it personally when corrected.

As far as 99% of the userbase is concerned, they're not usable until the standard client supports them via the GUI interface. An average Bitcoin user is not going to write a config file, launch the daemon, then use a series of archaic bitcoind commands to craft a super-duper-special transaction that has limited utility in its current implementation anyway - especially not if the sole cause for creating such a transaction is to use a vanity address starting with a "3". As they are currently implemented, multi-sig addresses are NOT usable by the VAST majority of users.


I corrected a statement by giving a valid assessment of the current implementation of OP_EVAL addresses and got pissed when some asperger's-addled moron decided to give the "correct" version of the facts which, despite being correct in the most technical sense, is still incorrect for practically every Bitcoin user in existence. By continuing to perpetrate this stupidity you are grossly misinforming other users about the current status of OP_EVAL transactions.

Was my original reaction a bit over the top? Definitely. My apologies if anyone was offended, I've just reached the limits of how much idiocy I can stand. I think it's time for a vacation from bitcointalk since every time I come here I nearly pop a vessel.

You're missing the point. OP wanted the firstbits 3GiG for an address (donation one, most likely). The only person who needs to know how to spend those funds is the OP (in fact, the only person who should know how to spend them is the OP). To the general public, the address is a novelty that only needs to be sent to (which Satoshi does support).

OP, is the fact that the address was used to mine block 44444 somehow important to you? You know, collectors item or something ;D.

I'm leaving now before I ragequit this entire forum.

I'm like 99% sure I'm overreacting at this point, but I've reached the limits of how much idiocy I can take for one day. God I wish every forum had StackExchange-style downvote buttons, wouldn't have to say a damn thing, just click to show my dissent.

::)

I think that's a coincidence.

Tried this on vanitygen (oclvanitygen doesn't have a -F option).

It seems to be buggy or at least undocumented how to use -F option...

When you use -Fscript it then expects a 3 for first char but doesn't work with that.
I'm probably missing something about how to use -F as the only help info is "(pubkey or script)".

Now this is strange.  When I tried some things work, some do not:

C:\downloads\www.bitcoin.org>vanitygen -F script 3Biteme

BUT 3Test does not work

BUT 3biteme does NOT work

BUT 3Biteme does work, etc.

Certain things work, others do not

If it "works", the address is unusable. 3-prefixed addresses are hashes of scripts, not public keys.

I think your answer is that version "5" only covers the first half of the 3-prefixed address space, with the second half being version "6". I'm not too sure about this, but it seems like that's the problem. 3Biteme is in the version "5" space, while 3Test and 3biteme are in the version "6" space.

Nonetheless, none of these addresses will be redeemable. You're hashing pubkeys, not scripts.

Ahh, too bad...


Tried sending wee little coin to 3gig5GkYGm2fRupCh9KAdPRLbnPnkPvAfC but client field goes red and it won't send.

I don't think 3gig (lowercase 'g') is in the 5 address space.

That's why I tried "-X 6" to use version 6. Not that I know what that means but I was just dick'n around anyway. If I knew more about this maybe I could figure out something.

The client won't send to a version 6 address, because no bitcoin addresses are version 6.

Is that something that may change in future or is version 6 just not ever going to work?

I cannot predict the future, however, AFAIK no plans to use it are in place now.

DeathAndTaxes
Why not try . File file.txt per day increased to ~10 gigabytes. Then simply search this text 1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr  at file.txt ? Or the likelihood is too small? (sorry for the noob question, I do not quite understand)

Thank you.

The time to write the file to disk and then read the file to match addresses is more than just matching addresses in memory. At least with a GPU it definitely. I guess on a CPU it may keep up. But why create a file full of unwanted addresses?

Matching a 7 character prefix takes days... Matching 8 takes years...
Matching all 36 takes <---forever--->

Bitcoin wouldn't be much good if you could find a key with anything less than all the computing power in the universe... and I'm just being vague on purpose because the numbers are so huge.

Well, my stupid head begins to understand.  :D  And if you use tables? This will increase the probability of finding a match?

1)1abcdefghjklmnopqr1234567890abcdefg
2)11234567890abcdefgabcdefghjklmnopqr
......
50?100?)1efghjklmnopq1abcdefghjklmnopqr12345
edit^typo fixed

No.  There is no method which will allow you to solve this problem faster than an exhaustive brute force search.  

If you could brute force the public/private keypair for a particular exact bitcoin address with any reasonable amount of computing power (even a massive amount) it would instantly destroy Bitcoin.  Why stop at finding "1GiGKdNCywjPxdXEg6PbPtXWYNZStFoSfr" why not find the private key for an address holding hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins and instantly steal them?  Of course even if you did how would you use them?  Someone else would likely be stealing them from you by finding your private key.  Who would be foolish enough to accept them as payment when they can just run some computers and steal them from you instead?  Even if they are honest why would any merchant want  coin which could be instantly stolen after they receive it?  

The value of BTC would fall to nothing.  I mean what good is a store of value where someone can instantly and remotely take it from without any access to the store of value.  "Poof" - value gone.

The only method to find a particularly public/private keypair is an exhaustive brute force search and the address space is 2^160th.  That is what vanitygen is doing.  It is simply trying random numbers until it finds one that produces an address which matches your pattern.  The longer the pattern the longer the search takes.  Each digit increases the avg time to find a solution by a factor of 58x.   So if you could fine an address which matches the first 5 digits in a day, one that matches 6 digits would take roughly 2 month, one that matches 7 digits would take roughly 10 years, one that matches 8 digits would take roughly 6 centuries, one that matches 10 digits would take 2 million years.

If you turned the entire planet into a super computer which ran at perfect efficiency (the thermodynamic limit) and built a dyson sphere around the sun to capture all of it's entire energy output you couldn't produce all addresses before our sun burned out.  You might have a ~1% chance of finding the keypair for a particular address sometime in the next 5 billion years.

yeah but everyone know the answer to that question would be 42 8)

Yes. I too am on that list. And I also fear for my investment. That would be fucking stupidity if someone stole all the coins from the list, using the SEQUOIA SUPERCOMPUTER and tables. This fear of losing money.

What list? If you're talking about firstbits - there is no list!
That's been explained several times here.

I think the short answer is that Bitcoin uses the state of the art in cryptographic techniques and unless you give someone your private key your Bitcoins are safe. But, on the other hand, if you lose your private key you are totally screwed and your Bitcoins will never be recovered.  No one can "take" anyone elses Bitcoins without the private key.

Do you have a more specific question?

This list. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92423.0 Thanks for the clarification.

Ahh the list.  You made the list?  Congratulations.  Now keep that private key safe and backed up!

No, I did not. But I was there.

Well .... That is impressive .. Why I did hear about a quantum computer? How the light can solve this? As I understand it , just change the mediator (the light instead of electrons) - the rest remains the same ..

Bitcoin addresses are a 160-bit hash of the ECDSA public key. Given the way Bitcoin's address mechanism works, you don't need to find the exact private key someone else generated, just one that hashes to their address - which is still CRAZY hard but less hard than finding the exact 256 bit private key. How hard?

On a Radeon 5xxx series (the kind a lot of us miners have) you can generate about 23.5 million keys per second. 160 bits of address gives us ~1.46*10^48 possible addresses. At 23.5 million keys per second, it would take you ~6.2*10^40 seconds, a bit under 2*10^33 (that's a 2 followed by 33 zeroes) years to search the entire key space. Realistically you'd probably find your key well before finishing the entire key space, but given that the sun will experience a red giant/white dwarf conversion phenomena in a few billion years and envelop the Earth, but assuming you can become immortal, get to another planet, keep your constituent atoms from decaying along with the rest of the atoms in the universe, and avoid all the black holes everything is collapsing into, you've got about 10^100 years (depending on how accurate our guesses at certain cosmological constants are) to finish calculating all those keys, which is more than enough - assuming you can avoid the heat death of the universe, Bitcoin isn't future proof!

Realistically some breakthrough in tech will invalidate Bitcoin's current encryption schema long before then resulting in a shift to new encryption methods, which isn't that hard to do (as evidenced by the sCrypt() variants out there).

TL;DR: you're entirely unlikely to ever find the privkey of that address with any hardware under any circumstances, ever.

Email bounced for contact@firstbits.com

What is this guy's username on here?

FreeMoney, IIRC.

PM sent. Thanks!

What, exactly, are you going to ask him? If he can change the algorithm that assigns firstbits because you're so super special? It's not a big database that he can just overwrite or something, it's an algorithm that finds the first address in the blockchain matching 1gig* - it's published, widely used and there's a fair chance that even IF firstbits.com would change their copy of the algo just for you, the community would abandon it for another site that adhered to the publicly published standard.

firstbits 1gig is in use, you're not going to change the algorithm, you're not going to brute force the privkey, just choose a different target and move on with life. It's gone man, it's gone.

Where there is a will there is a way and what ever the way is I will find it!

I'm not understanding how the 3 addresses aren't valid...their relation to op_eval, multisig, hashes of scripts, etc....but by this link it appears to me that a 3 address can both store Bitcoins and transfer them to a 1 address: https://blockchain.info/address/3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt

Now, please, I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone...if you feel you might rupture an intracranial aneurysm, please stop reading and go see an interventional neuroradiologist or neurosurgeon.

 

3 addresses ARE valid, but they cannot be created in the same way as a 1 address.

Please let us know.... I would like to get at pirates wallet.

How about variations like 1gig 1Gig 1gIG and the like? I remember there are both ways to find firstbit addresses, and at least one site/service/script does indeed honour capitals..

Mantis, I am very sure you won't reach your goal on the route you are now. Tell us what you have in mind, maybe there are other solutions..

Ente

What site/service is that?  Capitals shouldn't be recognized - it introduces way too much confusion when relaying firstbits.

Got it:

5HrGsm6TekRMjjB3MvLD9E8Sbe29EBseNcsGGXEQkhL3t3pfHaU

1ButNahUW8pD9cX1xLbRYHfP5KSumJCchP

No, there's not. This has been proven many many times over. If "where there's a will, there's a way" were true, those hippies in the 60s would have successfully levitated the pentagon. There is no way for you to 1) get the privkey for that address without contacting its rightful owner or 2a) get another key to match those firstbits without 2b) changing the algorithm behind firstbits, which you also can't do.

Just give up on the 1gig firstbits man, it is literally an impossibility.

unclemantis if you obtain the privkey for that address we all might as well give up and go home because it would imply that bitcoin is fundamentally broken

Or the owner responds and gives you the private key. I doubt he even knows he has it in his wallet, presuming its not lost.

He could send a binary message via satoshis and include his email address or something in it.

oh, but there is a way! just: it's going to take too long. so "an impossibility" is correct for all practical purposes.

OK so differentiating between "valid" and "usable" is a bit pedantic IMHO but let's go ahead and change the language we're using anyway. Whether or not they're valid, they're not USABLE. Let's see what happens if we try to send coins to 3DLCRW4v2zcMoWfk8HH95JvMtQgCKhgKYt with some various clients/services:

Blockchain.info wallet:
https://i.imgur.com/BzpFz.png (https://i.imgur.com/BzpFz.png)

MtGox withdrawal:
http://i.imm.io/AHhT.png (http://i.imm.io/AHhT.png)

BitcoinSpinner Android Client:
https://i.imgur.com/VoiVQ.png (https://i.imgur.com/VoiVQ.png)

Bitcoin Wallet for Android by Andreas Schildbach:
https://i.imgur.com/yECV3.png (https://i.imgur.com/yECV3.png)

I haven't had a chance to test with the Satoshi client yet since this is a work PC and I don't (can't) have Bitcoin installed on it, will update when I get home. At the very least I can say at this moment that none of the web-based or Android-based clients support this Bitcoin address version yet, which makes it largely unusable. I suspect that the 0.6.3 Satoshi client doesn't support them without special configuration either. Even if it does, none of the exchanges, eWallets or other services will send to such an address so it would only be usable in the one direction.

I suspect that all the 3* addresses in the blockchain folks are linking to as "proof" are live tests of OP_EVAL using experimental forks.

Satoshi client will send to 3* addresses. It's also the most common client. 3 addresses are usable, Q.E.D.

I already tried with the Satoshi client. It doesn't allow sending to 3* addresses. You get an error message on 6.3 anyway.

But I'm not up on how these script addresses work anyway. Maybe they can only be the result of a script or something. Maybe you can only send from such an address? Or maybe it's just not supported yet. Don't know. Do care - as I wouldn't mind having that 3gig firstbit.

I just tried again. It went through.

Honestly, I'm not sure which "satoshi client" you people are using.
https://i.imgur.com/XcqDZ.png

Well, I should mention that I tried with a version 6 address not version 5. Maybe that's it. I forgot that initially but remember now I used vanitygen to make a 3gig variant and wanted to lock it up.

Oh, and he couldn't get firstbits 3gig right now anyway since firstbits doesn't seem to support those address versions either:

https://i.imgur.com/bTtLK.png (https://i.imgur.com/bTtLK.png)

Granted, this is probably erroneous, but it does lend further credence to my "invalid vs unusable" argument.

Even if Firstbits doesn't yet support it - having the trx in the chain would mean someday if it were supported you would "own" it.

Blockchain.info (http://blockchain.info) is probably more popular and does support version 5 address firstbits.

I'll concede that, given that I had blockchain.info bookmarked and firstbits.com wasn't, but it just further makes the point that "coverage is spotty" for v5 addresses, spotty enough to make them largely unusable.

So 3* addresses are usable by clever folk, not people like us :)

Well I personally count myself in that "clever folk" category, but I also count myself in the "way too lazy to deal with experimental software" and "entirely too lazy to deal with git and a compiler when an executable is available" - either way, the effect is similar  ;D

You shouldn't be using Bitcoin at all, then.

I think this is what happens at the end of a thread. All that can be said on topic has been said (which really wasn't much) and increasingly off-topic posts, like this one, don't have any place to go but inline at the end...no sub-posting a la slashdot.

OH ya, BTW! I am looking to buy the public/private key pair that was assigned the first bits of 1gig.

Inquire Within

Just in case you don't realize, you'll have to trust this person forever to not spend coins sent to that address.

Very true. But I think we are getting to the point where agreements like this are going to have to happen. Not sure how. We are all writing the book as we go along.

I think he's a collector of the strange and obscure. Even if useless.

Not only does he have to trust him but also trust he doesn't expose or publicize the info such that anyone else could do the same.

Yeah, people are and will continue to trust each other for large amounts, but you're talking about trusting a completely random miner forever for some unknown amount of money and paying for the privilege.

If you always move funds out only one transaction at a time will be at risk, so that's something.

this is only bad if you want to remain anonymous, if you don't want to be anonymous, by all means the more identification you can roll around in and cover your self with like dirt, the better.

Diggin' the new avatar psy!