tristan_luther (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
September 27, 2013, 03:48:57 AM |
|
Just one man's opinion.
|
|
|
|
bitsalame
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
Preaching the gospel of Satoshi
|
|
September 27, 2013, 03:50:06 AM |
|
If you had one you would think it is cool. This is the poor man's envy.
|
|
|
|
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
September 27, 2013, 03:52:02 AM Last edit: September 27, 2013, 07:09:37 PM by DeathAndTaxes |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoin's security and privacy model. If a QC ever breaks ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
|
|
|
|
bitsalame
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 714
Merit: 510
Preaching the gospel of Satoshi
|
|
September 27, 2013, 05:01:21 AM |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If that happens I wonder if the bitcoin network will survive. Any type of potential weakness will have a devastating effect in the confidence in the currency.
|
|
|
|
smoothie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
|
|
September 27, 2013, 05:53:33 AM |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct. Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose.
|
███████████████████████████████████████
,╓p@@███████@╗╖, ,p████████████████████N, d█████████████████████████b d██████████████████████████████æ ,████²█████████████████████████████, ,█████ ╙████████████████████╨ █████y ██████ `████████████████` ██████ ║██████ Ñ███████████` ███████ ███████ ╩██████Ñ ███████ ███████ ▐▄ ²██╩ a▌ ███████ ╢██████ ▐▓█▄ ▄█▓▌ ███████ ██████ ▐▓▓▓▓▌, ▄█▓▓▓▌ ██████─ ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌ ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─ ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩ ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀ ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀` ²²² ███████████████████████████████████████
| . ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM My PGP fingerprint is A764D833. History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ . LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS. |
|
|
|
Gabi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1008
If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat
|
|
September 27, 2013, 08:21:46 AM |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct. Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose. Bullshit, the blockchain tells you the addresses that have been reused, no guess.
|
|
|
|
smoothie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
|
|
September 27, 2013, 08:47:50 AM |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct. Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose. Bullshit, the blockchain tells you the addresses that have been reused, no guess. I was addressing the part about a vanity address undermining Bitcoin security and privacy. If you keep your funds at a vanity address you created, you have security/privacy. Perhaps you can tell me who exactly owns which address. Please include their first, middle, and last name, DOB, and current physical address. ... my point exactly...you can't unless the owner publicizes their vanity address.
|
███████████████████████████████████████
,╓p@@███████@╗╖, ,p████████████████████N, d█████████████████████████b d██████████████████████████████æ ,████²█████████████████████████████, ,█████ ╙████████████████████╨ █████y ██████ `████████████████` ██████ ║██████ Ñ███████████` ███████ ███████ ╩██████Ñ ███████ ███████ ▐▄ ²██╩ a▌ ███████ ╢██████ ▐▓█▄ ▄█▓▌ ███████ ██████ ▐▓▓▓▓▌, ▄█▓▓▓▌ ██████─ ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌ ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─ ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩ ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀ ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀` ²²² ███████████████████████████████████████
| . ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM My PGP fingerprint is A764D833. History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ . LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS. |
|
|
|
Dabs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
|
|
September 27, 2013, 09:32:49 AM |
|
I like the ones I created.
One is for donations, so it begins with 1food ... One is for a game, so it begins with 1Lotto and 1Poker ... One is for a gold coin raffle, so it begins with 1goLd...
They are all cold, so ... foolish? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.
|
|
|
|
waqas
|
|
September 27, 2013, 10:05:38 AM |
|
I like the ones I created.
One is for donations, so it begins with 1food ... One is for a game, so it begins with 1Lotto and 1Poker ... One is for a gold coin raffle, so it begins with 1goLd...
They are all cold, so ... foolish? Maybe. Fun? Definitely.
some time we need to do foolish things like this its good
|
|
|
|
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1016
|
|
September 27, 2013, 07:00:57 PM Last edit: September 27, 2013, 07:14:13 PM by Buffer Overflow |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct. Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose. I'm guessing D&T was talking about reusing an address once outputs have been spent. The public key is then revealed. Only ECDSA has to be cracked then. If an address has no spent outputs the public key is unknown because it is hashed twice. SHA256 then RIPEMD160. All three RIPEMD160, SHA256 and ECDSA have to be cracked to get private key then, making it more secure. Most vanity addresses I assume are reused, thus weaker.
|
|
|
|
jubalix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2632
Merit: 1023
|
|
September 28, 2013, 11:21:57 AM |
|
Well they are foolish. It undermines Bitcoins security and privacy model. If a QC ever breakers ECDSA those who don't reuse addresses will have the last laugh.
If you make your vanity address too obvious or public then yes you are correct. Otherwise it is just as much a guessing game as to whose address is whose. I'm guessing D&T was talking about reusing an address once outputs have been spent. The public key is then revealed. Only ECDSA has to be cracked then. If an address has no spent outputs the public key is unknown because it is hashed twice. SHA256 then RIPEMD160. All three RIPEMD160, SHA256 and ECDSA have to be cracked to get private key then, making it more secure. Most vanity addresses I assume are reused, thus weaker. if you used electrum would any spend from any address leave the whole thing compromised
|
|
|
|
Dabs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
|
|
September 28, 2013, 02:37:38 PM |
|
By principle, all used addresses can be compromised. It's still not easy.
If anything, we will find out, as the best addresses to compromise begin with 1dice...
|
|
|
|
xypos
|
|
September 28, 2013, 02:46:37 PM |
|
Vanity addresses are useless, but if some people like it, who would you refuse them the right to have it?
|
|
|
|
Dabs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
|
|
September 28, 2013, 03:02:11 PM |
|
Vanity addresses behave the same as any other randomly generated address. It's the reusing part that can introduce risk, no matter how small.
Even Mt Gox reuses addresses. You could have it sweep a private key and it will keep doing that forever.
|
|
|
|
|