Firstbits address transfer proposal

[btcusr]

Abstract

To enable users to transfer ownership of firstbits address to others

Motivation

In case of compromised private key, or other reasons (for profit), to allow users (owner) of address

Use Cases

  1. companies or banks might want to use fancy firstbit addresses, 1google, 1citi, 1paypal or 1, etc.
  2. compromised private key, so user wants to use different address with the same firstbits pattern

Procedure

  when a user does a transaction and following three points are true,
    1. user transfers all (100%) BTC to new address
    2. to-address firstbits pattern matches with from-address
    3. from-address owns the current firstbits address

  then, it is considered firstbits address ownership transfer

Considerations
  1. bitcoin APIs, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_Calls_list could optionally support usage of firstbits address

--
firstbits: 1vijay

[SgtSpike]

The whole idea of firstbits is the lack of a requirement for any sort of central database or authority with regards to who owns what firstbits.  If you introduce a centralized method of tracking who owns what firstbits address, it just kills the whole idea.  Not to mention changing the owner of a parent firstbits could also change subsequent firstbits.  Example:

1ATK5Zs3K1BcsVAmP5js4rcW7hPRh6Ui1J - firstbits 1atk
1ATKby5PSfzbugVcKJtdFz4eEou8JQinY - firstbits 1atkb
1ATkbDeKmmqn4yznVGrRkhpp3JiEMug6qD - firstbits 1atkbd

So, say the owner of 1atk also owns 1atkbd.  They want to transfer the ownership of the "1atk" firstbits address to the address whose current firstbits are "1atkbd" instead.  When the switch is made, the new address takes priority over the "1atkb" address, so the firstbits for "1atkb" actually changes to something else entirely, unbeknownst to whomever might have been using it.

[btcusr]

The whole idea of firstbits is the lack of a requirement for any sort of central database or authority with regards to who owns what firstbits.  If you introduce a centralized method of tracking who owns what firstbits address, it just kills the whole idea.  Not to mention changing the owner of a parent firstbits could also change subsequent firstbits.  Example:

1ATK5Zs3K1BcsVAmP5js4rcW7hPRh6Ui1J - firstbits 1atk
1ATKby5PSfzbugVcKJtdFz4eEou8JQinY - firstbits 1atkb
1ATkbDeKmmqn4yznVGrRkhpp3JiEMug6qD - firstbits 1atkbd

So, say the owner of 1atk also owns 1atkbd.  They want to transfer the ownership of the "1atk" firstbits address to the address whose current firstbits are "1atkbd" instead.  When the switch is made, the new address takes priority over the "1atkb" address, so the firstbits for "1atkb" actually changes to something else entirely, unbeknownst to whomever might have been using it.

Cool. Your example is true for point 2 and 3, but 1? No.

Did 1atk ever transferred  all of its BTC to 1atkb or 1atkbd?

Even more checks can be added into clients to allow, and explicitly confirm when the users does firstbits address transfer. Soon after the transfer, from-address (0 BTC balance) can be removed from blockchain.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
Soon after the transfer, from-address (0 BTC balance) can be removed from blockchain.

I don't think this is possible.

[Evolyn]

I don't think this is possible.

With 51% attack it is But 51% attack is... well, back to topic.

Even more checks can be added into clients [...]

Adding more and more to get something work isn't a good idea. KISS - otherwise you will run into very big problems later.

Overall, later (years) there will be no need for firstbits. It will be an artefact for geeks later The more popular bitcoin becomes, the more solutions and layer will be developed and added to hide the mess with the addresses for endusers. A coredeveloper already gave a hint leading into this direction, can't find post yet Dont forget bitcoin is still beta and under developing.

Oh... and 1paypal is funny

[btcusr]

- snip -
Soon after the transfer, from-address (0 BTC balance) can be removed from blockchain.

I don't think this is possible.

Its also ok to keep it, but somehow we need to know firstbits ownership is transfered.

[btcusr]

Overall, later (years) there will be no need for firstbits. It will be an artefact for geeks later The more popular bitcoin becomes, the more solutions and layer will be developed and added to hide the mess with the addresses for endusers. A coredeveloper already gave a hint leading into this direction, can't find post yet Dont forget bitcoin is still beta and under developing.

I think, firstbits is going to be there for ever. may be, some firstbits-variants could emerge, in near future.

[SgtSpike]

The whole idea of firstbits is the lack of a requirement for any sort of central database or authority with regards to who owns what firstbits.  If you introduce a centralized method of tracking who owns what firstbits address, it just kills the whole idea.  Not to mention changing the owner of a parent firstbits could also change subsequent firstbits.  Example:

1ATK5Zs3K1BcsVAmP5js4rcW7hPRh6Ui1J - firstbits 1atk
1ATKby5PSfzbugVcKJtdFz4eEou8JQinY - firstbits 1atkb
1ATkbDeKmmqn4yznVGrRkhpp3JiEMug6qD - firstbits 1atkbd

So, say the owner of 1atk also owns 1atkbd.  They want to transfer the ownership of the "1atk" firstbits address to the address whose current firstbits are "1atkbd" instead.  When the switch is made, the new address takes priority over the "1atkb" address, so the firstbits for "1atkb" actually changes to something else entirely, unbeknownst to whomever might have been using it.

Cool. Your example is true for point 2 and 3, but 1? No.

Did 1atk ever transferred  all of its BTC to 1atkb or 1atkbd?

Even more checks can be added into clients to allow, and explicitly confirm when the users does firstbits address transfer. Soon after the transfer, from-address (0 BTC balance) can be removed from blockchain.

Assume that all of its BTC WAS transferred.  I don't know how you are labeling points and what is true or not true.  Can you be more specific?

You also didn't mention removing addresses from the blockchain.  Technically, this would work, but only if everyone agrees to use a pruned blockchain in computing firstbits.  And how can it be determined whether a particular address should be pruned?  I have addresses that I scrape the funds out of from time to time, but that doesn't mean I am done using the address.  So your blockchain pruning algorithm would look for the final transfer out of an address to go towards something with the same firstbits prior to pruning, and only delete the address from the blockchain if that is the case?

I agree with Evolyn - this is far too complicated.  KISS.

[btcusr]

You also didn't mention removing addresses from the blockchain.  Technically, this would work, but only if everyone agrees to use a pruned blockchain in computing firstbits.  And how can it be determined whether a particular address should be pruned?  I have addresses that I scrape the funds out of from time to time, but that doesn't mean I am done using the address.  So your blockchain pruning algorithm would look for the final transfer out of an address to go towards something with the same firstbits prior to pruning, and only delete the address from the blockchain if that is the case?

Removing / pruning is just a way to do this. It can also be done different ways, like, directly implementing firstbits support into  blockchain / client.