Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 11:38:53 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Standard Check Numbers (checksums for addresses)  (Read 2830 times)
grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044



View Profile
January 17, 2013, 11:24:37 PM
 #41

Me??? No.  Take a look at this thread. I think you'll find that I was the very first person to explain to the OP that there is a checksum built in to the address.  I'm just trying to help people guess why the OP might want an additional checksum.  (See my previous guess at an imaginary scenario here.)
this is getting ridiculous. i guess we can extend this argument to adding a 1MB checksum to every bitcoin address just in case

Without a client how are you going to compute the "external checksum"?
I don't run a client when I'm at work, but I can easily run:

Code:
echo "1bitcoinaddress" | my_favorite_checksum
so we have to add all this useless overhead just because someone doesn't want to install a simple tool?

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
1511437133
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511437133

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511437133
Reply with quote  #2

1511437133
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511437133
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511437133

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511437133
Reply with quote  #2

1511437133
Report to moderator
1511437133
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511437133

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511437133
Reply with quote  #2

1511437133
Report to moderator
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
January 17, 2013, 11:28:13 PM
 #42

this is getting ridiculous. i guess we can extend this argument to adding a 1MB checksum to every bitcoin address just in case
Getting ridiculous? When wasn't it ridiculous?  I don't see how a 1MB checksum added to the address would make any difference.  Just in case of what?

so we have to add all this useless overhead just because someone doesn't want to install a simple tool?
What overhead? Which tool?

grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044



View Profile
January 17, 2013, 11:46:27 PM
 #43

this is getting ridiculous. i guess we can extend this argument to adding a 1MB checksum to every bitcoin address just in case
Getting ridiculous? When wasn't it ridiculous?  I don't see how a 1MB checksum added to the address would make any difference.  Just in case of what?
you're saying a checksum isn't enough, and we want to be even more sure, so i'm extending the argument to a 1MB checksum just in case of a 1 in a gazillion chance typo

so we have to add all this useless overhead just because someone doesn't want to install a simple tool?
What overhead? Which tool?
overhead = all the extra chatter resulting from exchanging checksums, requesting a compare, acknowledging the checksum, and calculation of the extra checksum on both sides.

it's trivial to install a command line tool (or even a bash script) that simply verifies a bitcoin address, rather than adding additional checksums. if you have the facilities to compute a reliable checksum, you can also just as easily check a bitcoin address.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
January 17, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
 #44

Getting ridiculous? When wasn't it ridiculous?  I don't see how a 1MB checksum added to the address would make any difference.  Just in case of what?
you're saying a checksum isn't enough, and we want to be even more sure . . .
Me? I never said any such thing.  You really need to pay closer attention when you read.

What overhead? Which tool?
overhead = all the extra chatter resulting from exchanging checksums, requesting a compare, acknowledging the checksum, and calculation of the extra checksum on both sides.
Exactly. The OP is trying to reduce some of that overhead by having the Bitcoin-Qt client display the checksum next to the address.  That way they don't need to calculate it on their side.  The person who receives the address would calculate it, and the person sending the address would glance at their own client (or have the checksum written/memorized?)

it's trivial to install a command line tool (or even a bash script) that simply verifies a bitcoin address, rather than adding additional checksums. if you have the facilities to compute a reliable checksum, you can also just as easily check a bitcoin address.
Perhaps if someone would have pointed the OP at such a tool or script, we could have avoided most of this discussion.  Nobody seemed to be aware of any such thing.

grue
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044



View Profile
January 18, 2013, 01:33:26 AM
 #45

What overhead? Which tool?
overhead = all the extra chatter resulting from exchanging checksums, requesting a compare, acknowledging the checksum, and calculation of the extra checksum on both sides.
Exactly. The OP is trying to reduce some of that overhead by having the Bitcoin-Qt client display the checksum next to the address.  That way they don't need to calculate it on their side.  The person who receives the address would calculate it, and the person sending the address would glance at their own client (or have the checksum written/memorized?)
so why doesn't the existing checksum not satisfy that requirement?

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988



View Profile
January 18, 2013, 01:43:36 AM
 #46

What overhead? Which tool?
overhead = all the extra chatter resulting from exchanging checksums, requesting a compare, acknowledging the checksum, and calculation of the extra checksum on both sides.
Exactly. The OP is trying to reduce some of that overhead by having the Bitcoin-Qt client display the checksum next to the address.  That way they don't need to calculate it on their side.  The person who receives the address would calculate it, and the person sending the address would glance at their own client (or have the checksum written/memorized?)
so why doesn't the existing checksum not satisfy that requirement?
As far as I'm concerned it does.

As far as I can tell from what the OP had said, it seems that he was concerned about a situation where the person receiving the address wouldn't have access to a bitcoin client to validate the address but would have access to some sort of "standard" checksum program.  A checksum that would not be given to the the receiver of the address but which he could quickly/easily generate and give back for the address sender to validate against what the address sender has from his own client.

jl2012
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


View Profile
January 18, 2013, 04:37:50 AM
 #47

Am I really the only one who makes detailed comparisons between bitcoin addresses to ensure they are the same?

I guess I must just be paranoid, maybe it's the irreversibility of a bitcoin transaction that scares me.

I usually compare the first few characters, a few characters in the middle, and the last few characters. That should be good enough because the last few characters are actually the checksum that you want (by double SHA256, not CRC).

Donation address: 374iXxS4BuqFHsEwwxUuH3nvJ69Y7Hqur3
PGP: D3CC 1772 8600 5BB8 FF67 3294 C524 2A1A B393 6517
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!