Behavior between block explorer when showing transaction in a block usually are different
Thanks for the concrete answers. Then there is no clear winner and we should choose the simplest and most obvious rule. What do you think is the most simplest and obvious rule?
it's not ideal when we're talking about privacy
Yes, it is for convenience but what is with lightning BOLT12 addresses, could their history also be chain analysed?
The answer should be no. On-chain history only reveal initial and last/final balance of addresses on certain LN channel.
PlebNames can be claimed anonymously. And by making Bitcoin and Lightning more convenient so that people do more on the bitcoin network instead of on centralized servers it would imho overall increase privacy.
if you want to claim a name with an address, then you can use vanity gen
Then we only have the beginning of an address, where can we search for the beginning of an address?
Well, you can download all the address with balance from Loyce page:
http://addresses.loyce.club/And then search for the address with a command like grep, it would be something like this:
$ cat AllAddressWithBalance.txt | grep 1MyVanityAddress
And that way you can search for the beginning of an address if it has balance, i mean, with your example the address must have balance too. But with my example, we keep the private key from the address and this way we don't have to burn the coins.
It is a cool idea to solve this with vanity addresses, I like the idea of needing to burn energy to find a vanity gen address, but bootstrapping this protocol is more difficult:
We would need to run extra infrastructure to make addresses searchable with their beginnings, this makes bootstrapping this protocol with vanity addresses more difficult and easier to attack as long as the infrastructure is not ubiquitously distributed.
Furthermore we have to run vanity gen on our own hardware that is not connected to the internet (or directly transfer names via OP_RETURN to secure wallets)
To be clear,i like the idea in general, but i don't like the burning coins way, that should never be an option for any blockchain process.
I also dislike that the amount of spendable satoshis is not constant but shrinks slowly. But looking at it rationally it does not matter.
Let's say there would be 1 billion (10^9) PlebNames (what is unlikely as at some point in future second level names would be derived from PlebNames (like with TLDs <secondLevelDomain>.com) that live in more scalable sidechains). This would burn 546 * 10^9 satoshis or about 5500 bitcoins. This is only 0.1% of the bitcoins that are already lost (about 4 million) and 1 billion PlebNames on the mainchain is farly exaggerated. So it is really minimal. (Maybe with quantum computers in 100 years these old address formats can be remined anyway
)