Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2017, 05:22:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Idea for shorter addresses built into the blockchain  (Read 692 times)
BTCThousandaire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 127



View Profile WWW
July 25, 2013, 04:46:36 AM
 #1

0000-000 could be the shortened address, stored once the first time it's used on the blockchain. It could be scanned and added to another file client side. I think a small transaction of say .0001 could help prevent spamming of the service. If numbers ran out for 7 digits, they could be added onto the front like 0-0000-000. There would be a 1-to-1 short address ratio.

Has anyone else suggested this, is working on this, or find a problem with this?

(please move to development & technical)

1508563341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508563341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508563341
Reply with quote  #2

1508563341
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508563341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508563341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508563341
Reply with quote  #2

1508563341
Report to moderator
1508563341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508563341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508563341
Reply with quote  #2

1508563341
Report to moderator
1508563341
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508563341

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508563341
Reply with quote  #2

1508563341
Report to moderator
Jaxkr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392

Recently recovered my account.


View Profile
July 25, 2013, 05:13:38 AM
 #2

You should check out Firstbits.
BTCThousandaire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 127



View Profile WWW
July 25, 2013, 07:24:48 AM
 #3

Thanks Jaxkr, I just did.

7+ decimal digits vs firstbits:

Blockchain bloat
 Limit one address to be assigned per minute. This would make 7 digits last 19 years and add very little data to the blockchain.

Most good names have already been snatched up
 Irrelevant since these are just numbers. But to avoid competing for numbers, only randomly assigned numbers could be allowed(generated by the miner of the next block).

Vulnerable to confusion
 Not any more than phone numbers which people are used to.

Contradicts design of Bitcoin (of reusing addresses)
 For someone who wants to reuse addresses, this is no problem.
 Otherwise generate more.

Increases storage requirements of light nodes
 Send to lookup from another node which verifies somehow.

Encourages the use of centralized services
 No problem for sending because of send to verify.
 Receiving could also send a lookup to check for a shorter address.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 25, 2013, 07:48:36 AM
 #4

Two things make it dead in the water:
a) it would require a hard fork and that is simply not going to happen.  I know people love to think up these great "hard fork" solutions but it is similar to thinking up how to make cars runs on magic when wizards return.  Great for mental masburbation but 0.000% chance of getting beyond the paper stage.

b) you shouldn't be reusing addresses.  Period.  For anything.  Ever.  Under any circumstances.   All it does is reduce your security, and make it significantly easier to track your transactions.   Addresses are essentially free.  No need to conserve them.
BTCThousandaire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 127



View Profile WWW
July 25, 2013, 06:17:50 PM
 #5

Two things make it dead in the water:
a) it would require a hard fork and that is simply not going to happen.  I know people love to think up these great "hard fork" solutions but it is similar to thinking up how to make cars runs on magic when wizards return.  Great for mental masburbation but 0.000% chance of getting beyond the paper stage.

b) you shouldn't be reusing addresses.  Period.  For anything.  Ever.  Under any circumstances.   All it does is reduce your security, and make it significantly easier to track your transactions.   Addresses are essentially free.  No need to conserve them.

a) I heard there will be another hard fork within the next 2 years, this could be added to it.

b) This would be a specialized use for things such as offline transactions, so conservation of them would be fine. You wouldn't have to reuse them if they are limited properly.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
July 25, 2013, 06:57:04 PM
 #6

a) I heard there will be another hard fork within the next 2 years, this could be added to it.

I think you misunderstand.  A hard fork isn't a foregone conclusion.  It will require overwhelming support of all stakeholders (users, developers, miners, exchanges, merchants, etc).  It isn't even guaranteed that the most basic and non-controversial changes will ever be approved.  Bitcoin is mostly a fixed protocol because the consensus threshold is so high.  Don't expect a hard fork to ever include anything but the most essential of fixes or changes.  Short re-usable addresses don't even come close.  The idea that one would dump a bunch of other "junk" into a hard fork because there will be one anyways is getting the cart before the horse.  A bunk of junk means it is more likely the hard fork will be DOA.

If you feel strongly then start working on a BIP but the odds of a hardfork for anything other than "OMG OMG the entire network is going to die" is roughly nil and approaching 0% as the network becomes larger and more diverse.
Pages: [1]
  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!