can we send bitcoin to ip addresses?

[cafter]

i was reading satoshi nakamoto's post on p2p foundation, and i clicked bitcoin.org link in introduction and just for curiosity searched it on wayback machine to see how the website looked like in 2009,
but, after scrolling i saw this image..

"If the recipient is online, you can enter their IP address and it will connect, get a new public key and send the transaction with comments."
really... is it possible to send bitcoin on a ip address if we are online? or i am wrong? just started to learn

only one reply in 2009 by "Sepp Hasslberge"?

[1715336593]

1715336593

[1715336593]

1715336593

[1715336593]

1715336593

[Knight Hider]

Sending Bitcoin to IP addresses is no longer possible.

--Knight Hider

[ranochigo]

It's removed because it is very inaccurate and insecure. Bitcoin communications are never encrypted and thus your ISP or anyone on your network could respond with their own address. Besides, there is no tangible benefits to doing so. The message part is local, just a memo for you to indicate what the transaction is for.

[_act_]

There are some things that are no longer possible because they were removed. The first is to be sending to IP address which people on this forum and other bitcoin users have used befor, but this is not secure like sending directly to your bitcoin address. The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

[ranochigo]

The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

IP sending could be secure, if the path that the data transfer goes through can be guaranteed to be secure. But that'll probably require some form of pre-shared key or authentication. But it isn't too useful regardless.

You can. P2PK is still standard, it's just that most wallets don't support or show their user an option to do so.

[Faisal2202]

I can recall that this topic was made before even though i might have answers on that topic too. Well, here is mine, IP should be secure like there are many layers on internet and only the experienced ones or the most careful ones will use the IP in only severe conditions and if they would have used then they must have secured the connection first. As, i think it must not be a preferred way back then well that's what i assumed from this because many legendary members are so careful in such cases.

So, the best practice must be sending on Wallet address instead of IP where both parties have to be online while making the transaction.

[internetional]

The other one that is possible before was to send to public key, but it is not possible again. The only way you can now send bitcoin is only through the use of bitcoin address.

You can. P2PK is still standard, it's just that most wallets don't support or show their user an option to do so.

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer. 

[_act_]

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer. 

You do not need to try anything like that, P2PK was used before bitcoin address was created which was P2PKH, which means you will pay to public key hash which is bitcoin address, instead of paying to public key directly. There are now other address types that can be used for payment which is what you should better be using.

[ranochigo]

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer. 

Bitcoin Core. If you're going to P2PK, then you'll have to spend with a wallet that accepts your private key as a P2PK type instead of a P2PKH type. Most of the transactions in the earlier days are P2PK, not P2PKH. Blockexplorers tend to translate them into a P2PKH type but that is incorrect.

[vjudeu]

If you want to use P2PK, then at least use compressed key. For example:

Code:

04 678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb6 49f6bc3f4cef38c4f35504e51ec112de5c384df7ba0b8d578a4c702b6bf11d5f //uncompressed, don't use this
03 678afdb0fe5548271967f1a67130b7105cd6a828e03909a67962e0ea1f61deb6 //compressed, use that instead

Also, instead of P2PK, you could switch to Taproot, then Schnorr signatures will be applied, and nobody will know, how many keys were aggregated.

[pooya87]

You do not need to try anything like that, P2PK was used before bitcoin address was created which was P2PKH, which means you will pay to public key hash which is bitcoin address, instead of paying to public key directly. There are now other address types that can be used for payment which is what you should better be using.

To be clear the option to pay to address (ie. P2PKH scripts and addresses) was not something to be added later. They were available from the first release that is version 0.1.0. The only reason why P2PK is seen in all early blocks is that the P2PK outputs were the default output type that the bitcoin core miner chose.

[internetional]

Wow! I’ve never heard about this option. Which wallets do still support such kind of transfers? Probably, Bitcoin Core, right? And what about any other, not so ponderous? It would be very interesting to create such transaction and to look at it in a public explorer. 

Bitcoin Core. If you're going to P2PK, then you'll have to spend with a wallet that accepts your private key as a P2PK type instead of a P2PKH type. Most of the transactions in the earlier days are P2PK, not P2PKH. Blockexplorers tend to translate them into a P2PKH type but that is incorrect.

Thank you very much. I have looked for old transactions and found such type of address. E.g. Hal’s one: 0411db93e1dcdb8a016b49840f8c53bc1eb68a382e97b1482ecad7b148a6909a5cb2e0eaddfb84c cf9744464f82e160bfa9b8b64f9d4c03f999b8643f656b412a3

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

No, it doesn't. Transaction - f5e26c8b82401c585235c572ba8265f16f7d9304ed8e31c198eab571754f5331 - is paying the coinbase reward of block 30 to a P2PK output. It rightly notes that it's a P2PK (not an address), and it shows the uncompressed public key below.

[ranochigo]

Thank you very much. I have looked for old transactions and found such type of address. E.g. Hal’s one: 0411db93e1dcdb8a016b49840f8c53bc1eb68a382e97b1482ecad7b148a6909a5cb2e0eaddfb84c cf9744464f82e160bfa9b8b64f9d4c03f999b8643f656b412a3

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

P2PK is still standard and block explorers should still identify them as such. Some of the block explorers erroneously identify them as a P2PKH address type instead which is wrong. Interestingly, Bitcoin addresses were used for receiving payments from the start but Pay-To-IP feature and mining both uses P2PK instead. Hence, Hal Finney transaction could just be using Pay-To-IP.

[Yamane_Keto]

Hence, Hal Finney transaction could just be using Pay-To-IP.

It appears to have been working for a while, as it was removed from Bitcoin Core v0.8.0 Bitcointalk pull request Github https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1904


After a little research, they even tried to add the IP address next to the Bitcoin address, or domain name and SSL cert. I don't know if these ideas were applied, but their idea is more like routers between IPV4 and IPV6.

urn:bitcoin.org:19vcWM6EEbQHVdN2W8NXv9ySgsPjbZ6gU3@12.34.56.78

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=158.msg1322#msg1322

Based on some comments, it seems that this feature was used, but I don't know if it was with the domain name and bitcoin address or just for the IP address.

[internetional]

Mempool.space still considers these symbols as a legitimate Bitcoin address.

No, it doesn't. Transaction - f5e26c8b82401c585235c572ba8265f16f7d9304ed8e31c198eab571754f5331 - is paying the coinbase reward of block 30 to a P2PK output. It rightly notes that it's a P2PK (not an address), and it shows the uncompressed public key below.

Hmm... When I type this public key in their search field, they find it as an address.

[pooya87]

Hmm... When I type this public key in their search field, they find it as an address.

Technically they shouldn't show you anything because public key is not a P2PK (nor is it P2PKH or any other address type). When we say P2PK we are talking about a specific script that contains the public key (pushdata + OP_CheckSig).

[BlackHatCoiner]

Hmm... When I type this public key in their search field, they find it as an address.

The search bar part, yeah, incorrect, but they've indeed distinguished it from other standard outputs like P2PKH, which is enough for me.

Technically they shouldn't show you anything because public key is not a P2PK (nor is it P2PKH or any other address type). When we say P2PK we are talking about a specific script that contains the public key (pushdata + OP_CheckSig).

Well, yes, but why not showing you the balance of that particular public key? You can argue the same for P2PKH, that we're talking about a specific script that contains the RIPEMD-160 hash.

[EmpoEX]

I didn't know it was possible to send Bitcoin using an IP address. Glad to know that it was stopped.
I believe this is an insecure method to send Bitcoin as there might be several wallets in the same IP.
Moreover, the Ip address reveals their location.

[pooya87]

Well, yes, but why not showing you the balance of that particular public key? You can argue the same for P2PKH, that we're talking about a specific script that contains the RIPEMD-160 hash.

It is entirely possible that it's just buggy and they're too lazy to fix it.
It could be that based on their search request history they came to the conclusion that some users are indeed using their public key to check their balance. But considering that in today's available wallet softwares addresses are used not P2PK, they convert that pubkey to different address types and the website is redirected to the first one that has been used otherwise show the default one which is P2PKH.
The bug is where their indexed database counts balance in P2PK outputs as the P2PKH balance.

[Accardo]

Moreover, the Ip address reveals their location.

Only if they don't use VPN or other method to hide "real" IP address.

That would have been a set back and will expose bitcoin transaction to different kinds of third parties like you mentioned, VPN, can lead to a man in the middle attack. Satoshi chose using URL in place of IP, but the digital signature will depend on certificate authorities to make confirmation that a bitcoin transaction was sent to the real owner of the site. Hence, that would still be ambiguous to non technical users who are into bitcoin. The whole concept would have derailed the primary aim of full decentralization. I don't think they will be need for a PGP digital signature security if sending bitcoin to IP was not removed.

[ranochigo]

That would have been a set back and will expose bitcoin transaction to different kinds of third parties like you mentioned, VPN, can lead to a man in the middle attack. Satoshi chose using URL in place of IP, but the digital signature will depend on certificate authorities to make confirmation that a bitcoin transaction was sent to the real owner of the site. Hence, that would still be ambiguous to non technical users who are into bitcoin. The whole concept would have derailed the primary aim of full decentralization.

Satoshi adopted IP instead of URL, DNS poisoning would be a more likely attack vector rather than IP addresses. TCP packets are difficult to falsify as compared to broadcasting from a rogue BGP. Using IP as a primary identifier would also be problematic given how dynamic IPs work.

I don't think they will be need for a PGP digital signature security if sending bitcoin to IP was not removed.

PGP is completely independent of Bitcoin. It is a way to verify the authenticity of the message with regards to a known sender.

[Davidvictorson]

It's removed because it is very inaccurate and insecure. Bitcoin communications are never encrypted and thus your ISP or anyone on your network could respond with their own address. Besides, there is no tangible benefits to doing so. The message part is local, just a memo for you to indicate what the transaction is for.

@ranochigo Yes, I noticed this being able to send bitcoin to IP Address in the early days of bitcoin. And you are correct, the inaccuracy and insecurity of this methods made it to be removed. Bitcoin development if I may say so, is constantly changing and the developers are looking for more secure and accurate ways to send and receive bitcoins. Do you think we have reached the final stage of methods for sending bitcoins, or are we going to see the current ways of sending and receiving bitcoin being replaced by innovative and even more secure methods?

[Kakmakr]

Why do you willingly want to dox yourself, by bitcoins being send to an IP Address that are linked to you? The whole idea behind pseudo anonymity is for you not to reveal your personal information.

You also open yourself up to a "Man-in-the-middle" attack, where a hacker can intercept the transaction with a spoofed or duplicate address and then you lose those coins. 

[ranochigo]

Bitcoin development if I may say so, is constantly changing and the developers are looking for more secure and accurate ways to send and receive bitcoins. Do you think we have reached the final stage of methods for sending bitcoins, or are we going to see the current ways of sending and receiving bitcoin being replaced by innovative and even more secure methods?

Don't see how you need to have another format to represent addresses. Bitcoin address and individual identities should have 1-to-1 relationship, where it is fulfilled by our public key schemes and it is highly unlikely that an address would be unintentionally be associated with a different identity than the original owner. Certain addresses like P2WSH are longer, and are encoded in a slightly different manner but the gist of it is still the same.

[DaveF]

Just imagine the difficulty if every time you wanted to send someone BTC you would have to verify that their IP did not change and that their node was online. For a bunch of tech people playing around with BTC when it was new that's fine. As adoption grew, there really was no reason to keep that feature since most people would be sending to addresses anyway.

Would it be nice to still have? Possibly, but not really worth putting in the time and effort to develop it more.
And as IPv6 replaces IPv4 the addresses become so much longer.

192.168.1.100 is somewhat easy

2001:db8:3333:4444:5555:6666:7777:8888 is a lot longer to deal with.

-Dave

[Accardo]

PGP is completely independent of Bitcoin. It is a way to verify the authenticity of the message with regards to a known sender.

@ranochigo Talking about PGP, during the usage of IP or if domain names were later used by merchants wouldn't PKI be the digital certificate needed to verify the authenticity of a message or transaction. Would they be need for asymmetric cryptography when securing a digital signature from getting impersonated or cracked. Please I'll appreciate a clarification on this.

Excuse me, did you reply to my post with AI generated text? This discussion is about IP transaction[1] and Bitcoin Core (previously called "Bitcoin-Qt" and "Bitcoin") never support send Bitcoin to HTTP/HTTPS URL.

[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/IP_transaction

It was once proposed and discussed by some forum members including Satoshi on this thread, that URL can be used to reduce the threat using mere IP could bring, but like Ranochigo already said about DNS Poisoning, that would have been a problem if Url was chosen, such things as DDOS attack or phishing will be a norm.  That was a mistake, where I used "chose", he only discussed the idea; its advantage and disadvantages. However, do you consider a mistake or what you don't understand clearly as AI generated content? No AI is as intelligent to write like I did, if my text looks like one then my writing improved suddenly.

[NotATether]

PGP is completely independent of Bitcoin. It is a way to verify the authenticity of the message with regards to a known sender.

@ranochigo Talking about PGP, during the usage of IP or if domain names were later used by merchants wouldn't PKI be the digital certificate needed to verify the authenticity of a message or transaction. Would they be need for asymmetric cryptography when securing a digital signature from getting impersonated or cracked. Please I'll appreciate a clarification on this.

HTTPS certificates are not using keys made by PGP, they use a standard RSA certificate in the PEM file format for certificates (created by OpenSSL), which look something like this:

Code:

====== BEGIN CERTIFICATE ======
<Lots of base64 text>
====== END CERTIFICATE ======

This might be confused with PGP public and private keys, because they have almost this exact same format. (Certificate is just replaced with Public Key or Private Key). And this format is even used for Bitcoin signed messages.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Do you think we have reached the final stage of methods for sending bitcoins, or are we going to see the current ways of sending and receiving bitcoin being replaced by innovative and even more secure methods?

What can be better than a Bitcoin address? It doesn't require a machine running 24/7, doesn't have liquidity or connectivity requirements, is extremely difficult to error due to checksum, and it's a short text anyone can even write down if needed. It's perfect.

Just imagine the difficulty if every time you wanted to send someone BTC you would have to verify that their IP did not change and that their node was online.

That is trivial to correct with running a hidden service. You'd have to, not only for that, but because it's hard for many to port forward.

[ranochigo]

@ranochigo Talking about PGP, during the usage of IP or if domain names were later used by merchants wouldn't PKI be the digital certificate needed to verify the authenticity of a message or transaction. Would they be need for asymmetric cryptography when securing a digital signature from getting impersonated or cracked. Please I'll appreciate a clarification on this.

Not really sure what you're talking about this.

Generally, you'll have to have a form of web-of-trust that allows you to validate the identity of the person that you're talking to. You can encrypt your connections by using Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange but the person that you're talking to has to establish that they're the correct party, which provides no protection against MITM attacks. Hence, it is generally recommended for people to meet up physically to verify each other's certificates, instead of relying on the keys given through the internet.

[Flexystar]

I didn't know it was possible to send Bitcoin using an IP address. Glad to know that it was stopped.
I believe this is an insecure method to send Bitcoin as there might be several wallets in the same IP.
Moreover, the Ip address reveals their location.

I was also surprised to see this thread and the discussion is just amazing. We had so many way outs back then and IP address was considered one of them. I don't know may be back then the IP address or as such internet was not everyone's cup of tea and thus it was limited by its interaction. If Satoshi is alive today then he might have already laughed at his own idea of sending the Bitcoin's to IP address. The world has changed a lot and internet has become complex network with more chances of cyber attacks if your IP is breached.

Bitcoin would have not survived. It would have been hacked now and then by smartest high school kid too! That much weak this system would have been. I think it's worth that developers had debate on this back in the time and they changed this protocol. Nice walk through the history of mechanisms.