Idea for shorter addresses built into the blockchain

[BTCThousandaire]

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)

[1714834138]

1714834138

[Jaxkr]

You should check out Firstbits.

[BTCThousandaire]

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]

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]

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]

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.