Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

[LiteCoinGuy]

Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

Right now, Bitcoin is simply too difficult for the average person to use.

Paving the way for mainstream adoption, it seems, requires that we simplify and obfuscate away the confusing parts.

http://blog.onename.io/



what do you think? i like the idea.

[gweedo]

Bitcoin addresses need to go, but the wallets should be taking a more active role in doing this, not services. Bitcoin addresses are not like DNS, but more like emails, being sent to other people. Wallets should have a protocol to do a handshake send the bitcoin address and then display to the user "Do you want to send Bitpay 0.5 BTC for a lambo?" Yes or no.

[MRKLYE]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

[Ron~Popeil]

There will always be the people that need to be hand held the whole way with stuff like this. There will be a nice market niche for a business to make incredibly simple wallets that protect these people from themselves.

[Noruka]

There will always be the people that need to be hand held the whole way with stuff like this. There will be a nice market niche for a business to make incredibly simple wallets that protect these people from themselves.

agree, leave it alone. dont fix whats not broken. There is a nice service opportunity for the slower types to use a service that manages that for them.

[franky1]

bitcoin addresses are hard to type..

i have an invention.. brand new technology...

its called.......................................

QR Codes.. trust me no one has heard of them they are the future pay me a billion dollars and you can use it to.....

oh wait this isnt 1999.. ok, well then lets change my sales pitch

bitcoins doesnt need long addresses and people typing them, they already use QR codes. one click of your webcam/smartphone cam scanner and its done..

moving on

[deggen]

I couldn't agree more. The sooner we figure out how to standardize the username to bitcoin address decentralized DNS type service, the better.

My concern with the idea at the moment is that when I copy-paste the address or QR scan it, I can see that it's the same string after a quick glance. Since transactions are irreversible, I like that I can check it really is going where I want it to. Any DNS type service would have to be extremely secure for me to risk using it. If you get a DNS screw up you're on the wrong website or get an error code - no big deal - but if you get a bitcoinDNS screwup, you just sent your money to some random person or into a bottomless pit.

DNS is so easily hacked, but there must be a way to make this idea work. I reckon as soon as someone nails it, the price will do it's next to-the-moon spike.

- Darren

[yatsey87]

I'm sure there will be wallets that will come out where we can have shortened addresses for our longer addresses or maybe being able to send money directly to our wallets via something else linked to the account like a mobile number or something. As mentioned above QR codes also help, but I think there needs to be a simpler way of remembering your account.

[Bitcoinbikers]

Maybe find a way to link your bitcoin address to a thumbprint or use facial recognition, generate a private key from your facial features

[Beliathon]

Bitcoin addresses need to go, but the wallets should be taking a more active role in doing this, not services. Bitcoin addresses are not like DNS, but more like emails, being sent to other people. Wallets should have a protocol to do a handshake send the bitcoin address and then display to the user

Yes, exactly, you nailed it.

We need user-friendly GUIs, and I'm sure we'll get them sooner rather than later. As you stated, Bitcoin is like DNS (or DOS, if you will). The Bitcoin protocol is a foundation layer (like HTTP) upon which many other things can (and will) be built.

The more we build onto that layer, the more value we add to Bitcoin. Think about the implications of what I just said when considering the probable future value of your BTC, dear reader.

[intron]

Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

Right now, Bitcoin is simply too difficult for the average person to use.

Paving the way for mainstream adoption, it seems, requires that we simplify and obfuscate away the confusing parts.

http://blog.onename.io/


what do you think? i like the idea.

How does it work? They generate a bitcoin address for you
and then what? Why would I send funds to that adr when
I'm not the only one controlling the private key?

Edit on self: overlooked the 'change address' button.

[BitCoinDream]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

This approach is actually hindrance to the mainstream adoption. When a non-tech person is encashing his paper wallet, he'll more likely type his bitcoin address, rather than scanning the QR code and there may be mistake. System is supposed to take care of that.

[Lauda]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

Exactly. Because copy + paste is so hard that we need to completely throw away addresses.
Please. Stop being lazy.
The blog is bad.

[yatsey87]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

Exactly. Because copy + paste is so hard that we need to completely throw away addresses.
Please. Stop being lazy.
The blog is bad.

It's not neccesarily people being lazy, but there are other disadvantages to having these long gobbledygook addresses. If you're out an about and someone asks you for your address it's not like you could just tell them it off the top of your head, so that's why I think we need some alternative way to shorten or make the addresses more memorable.

[commandrix]

This is why I like to use QR codes as an easy way to get people started. That, and teaching people how to copy and paste addresses if they don't already know that CTRL + C tells the computer to copy a selection and CTRL + V tells the computer to paste it.

[Este Nuno]

For what use case is having this better than the standard methods?

On a computer copy paste is as easy as it can get pretty much.

On a mobile device QR codes work alright. It could be better with NFC if that ends up taking off at some point. But for now a QR scan is better than typing in some sort of address or alias.

[jbrnt]

I agree that bitcoin addresses are too long to remember or type, but I don't think they need to go. QRCode is doing a good job for mobile devices and we can use email or instant messaging for desktop. I actually have an email address which auto-replies my bitcoin address to anyone who sends an email there.

[mr smith]

Credit card numbers are to long to remember noone does or has to.
bitcoin addressess could be twice as long, makes nothing harder.
It's the tech / say you had a swipe card with chip & pin all you need is to remember 4 digits !

[wheatrich]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

Exactly. Because copy + paste is so hard that we need to completely throw away addresses.
Please. Stop being lazy.
The blog is bad.

OP is correct though, people in general are incapable of copy + paste.  The address system is one of the current hinderances to widespread adoption.  It absolutely has to be changed before you'll see the public get all on board.  (if you had to type in a cc number every time in a store nobody would use that either)

Also you're not going to be copy and pasting buying something in a brick and mortar shop, if we want mainstream we have to get more toward doing that.

phones are nice but people lose and break them all the time so they aren't storing the $ there yet.

[zhinkk]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

This. Plus if you think copying and pasting is too complex, use QR codes.

[BitCoinDream]

Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

Right now, Bitcoin is simply too difficult for the average person to use.

Paving the way for mainstream adoption, it seems, requires that we simplify and obfuscate away the confusing parts.

http://blog.onename.io/



what do you think? i like the idea.

I just checked the site onename.io. This is the 3rd site that which is trying to give the long string a short name without trying it to be trustless. The list is as follows...

1. CoinBase.com

2. BitcoinWallet.com

3. OneName.io

[DannyElfman]

If you can't use your eyes + copy and paste you probably shouldn't be using money in the first place.

Exactly. Because copy + paste is so hard that we need to completely throw away addresses.
Please. Stop being lazy.
The blog is bad.

OP is correct though, people in general are incapable of copy + paste.  The address system is one of the current hinderances to widespread adoption.  It absolutely has to be changed before you'll see the public get all on board.  (if you had to type in a cc number every time in a store nobody would use that either)

Also you're not going to be copy and pasting buying something in a brick and mortar shop, if we want mainstream we have to get more toward doing that.

phones are nice but people lose and break them all the time so they aren't storing the $ there yet.

Many "in person" merchants that accept bitcoin use QR codes that will help setup a transfer to the merchants address, so even though a BTC address is being used, it is transparent to the customer.

Most wallet services (both software and web wallets) also support using QR codes for both sending and requesting, reducing the need to even copy and paste.

[nahtnam]

Coinbase is doing this with email addresses.
There is firstbits. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Firstbits.
You can send a QR code.

I dont mind the long addresses.

[techlover]

Bitcoin addresses need to go, but the wallets should be taking a more active role in doing this, not services. Bitcoin addresses are not like DNS, but more like emails, being sent to other people. Wallets should have a protocol to do a handshake send the bitcoin address and then display to the user "Do you want to send Bitpay 0.5 BTC for a lambo?" Yes or no.

I think this explains very well, the address should be like an e-mail, if possible, people can make their address simpler.

[DannyElfman]

Coinbase is doing this with email addresses.
There is firstbits. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Firstbits.
You can send a QR code.

I dont mind the long addresses.

The long addresses is one thing that makes bitcoin secure as it give a large number of possible addresses, making it difficult (really impossible) to find a private key of someone else via brute force.

[phelix]

Merged on git, will be included in the next release.

Note this always uses the same address so there is still room for privacy improvements.

[jbreher]

If you have "a" Bitcoin address, then you are doing it wrong. The recommended way to operate is to create a separate address for use in each incoming transaction. This increases your potential anonymity (or pseudonymity if you prefer), and also adds security by allowing you to spend a portion of your holdings without exposing your public key.

[R2D221]

If you're out an about and someone asks you for your address it's not like you could just tell them it off the top of your head. [...]

I don't know my bank account number by heart, so it's the same thing. But if I really wanted to receive money, I would just open my phone wallet and generate a new address.

Also, as others have already said, using the same address all the time is not advised.

[minerpumpkin]

Addresses per se don't need to go. We need them and they're an integral part of the Bitcoin technology. Bitcoin as it is, is merely a protocol that enabled monetary value to be transferred from one entity to another. How this may be used in the future has to be seen. When it comes to the Web or Internet, 'normal people' don't use IP addresses as well, yet in fact they do

[Light]

While there isn't really a problem with this, I see a flaw with the implementation. If you leave Bitcoin as it is now, the only way to have agreed upon monikers/identifiers that could be used would be to have an external company/entity set up an internal payment system like inputs.io. The thing is that it comes with the problems that we already experienced, can people be trusted? Alternatively, if Bitcoin was edited such that monikers could be attached to addresses, you wouldn't be able to distinguish between two of the same moniker, meaning you'd have to limit the number of each moniker to 1. People would subsequently snatch up anything that is relevant, and you'd be left with a crap ton of shitty monikers that no one wants to use and would probably be harder to remember then just copying and pasting an address.

[jubalix]

name coin can likely do this

[nahtnam]

name coin can likely do this

I think they did. There is a screenshot of it a few posts above.

[Soros Shorts]

If you have "a" Bitcoin address, then you are doing it wrong. The recommended way to operate is to create a separate address for use in each incoming transaction. This increases your potential anonymity (or pseudonymity if you prefer), and also adds security by allowing you to spend a portion of your holdings without exposing your public key.

And you are doing it really wrong if you want that ONE Bitcoin address to be linked to you identity via an easy to remember moniker.

[joshraban76]

When I deal with bigger amounts. (Big for me is anything over .1 lol.) I tend to double check the first and last few characters just to make sure its correct after pasting. Its never not been correct but the first time I don't check will be the first time I send coin to the wrong address. Its just my luck

[nahtnam]

When I deal with bigger amounts. (Big for me is anything over .1 lol.) I tend to double check the first and last few characters just to make sure its correct after pasting. Its never not been correct but the first time I don't check will be the first time I send coin to the wrong address. Its just my luck

Yep. Same exact method for me. There was one time that happened, but the tx got stuck and returned! Very lucky!

[DannyElfman]

If you have "a" Bitcoin address, then you are doing it wrong. The recommended way to operate is to create a separate address for use in each incoming transaction. This increases your potential anonymity (or pseudonymity if you prefer), and also adds security by allowing you to spend a portion of your holdings without exposing your public key.

And you are doing it really wrong if you want that ONE Bitcoin address to be linked to you identity via an easy to remember moniker.

This is not necessarily true if for example you are a street vendor that has a lot of repeat customers every day (for example a hot dog stand) as the customers could simply send the bitcoin to the same address every day while the vender is preparing the hotdog and could see that the TX has been propagated by the network prior to giving his customer his food. The vendor could use bitcoinfog for example to move his receipts to another address that he controls so he can pay bills, and otherwise spend his bitcoin with anonymity.

Another example of when it would be good for an entity to use only one bitcoin address would be an entity that accepts donations, for example wiki leaks, the red cross, a church or other charitable cause. This would allow donors to see exactly how their donations are being used.

[Este Nuno]

When I deal with bigger amounts. (Big for me is anything over .1 lol.) I tend to double check the first and last few characters just to make sure its correct after pasting. Its never not been correct but the first time I don't check will be the first time I send coin to the wrong address. Its just my luck

Yep. I always check the first and last characters. The odds of it being the the wrong address with the name characters in those positions are pretty high.

[phelix]

name coin can likely do this

I think they did. There is a screenshot of it a few posts above.

Note that you can also put your Bitcoin address into a namecoin ID.

[Soros Shorts]

If you have "a" Bitcoin address, then you are doing it wrong. The recommended way to operate is to create a separate address for use in each incoming transaction. This increases your potential anonymity (or pseudonymity if you prefer), and also adds security by allowing you to spend a portion of your holdings without exposing your public key.

And you are doing it really wrong if you want that ONE Bitcoin address to be linked to you identity via an easy to remember moniker.

This is not necessarily true if for example you are a street vendor that has a lot of repeat customers every day (for example a hot dog stand) as the customers could simply send the bitcoin to the same address every day while the vender is preparing the hotdog and could see that the TX has been propagated by the network prior to giving his customer his food. The vendor could use bitcoinfog for example to move his receipts to another address that he controls so he can pay bills, and otherwise spend his bitcoin with anonymity.

Another example of when it would be good for an entity to use only one bitcoin address would be an entity that accepts donations, for example wiki leaks, the red cross, a church or other charitable cause. This would allow donors to see exactly how their donations are being used.

True, the donation scenario is a valid reason for having a single public and well known address.

However, I don't really buy the hot dog stand  example. If I were a street vendor and gave the same address to all my customers who pay (slightly) in advance, then how would I know who is paying me unless I force them to pay from the same sending address each time? I would instead be giving out a unique address to each regular customer. That way I'd know who is coming in the next few minutes when their transaction appears. For non-regulars a QR code stuck to the side of the cart should suffice. Customers can still send in advance to the QR code, but I won't really know who they are until the arrive and show me their Tx.

[Kiloday]

OneName is a decentralized identity system (DIS) with a user directory made of entries in a decentralized key-value store (the Namecoin blockchain).

Nobody owns or controls OneName and users are in complete control of their data. OneName is open source, has a public design, and is for all to take part.

Looks interesting.

According to the site, the whole protocol uses Namecoin to record usernames. So you will need to spend 0.01 NMC to register a name. If this takes off and people start using them in lieu of their actual Bitcoin addresses, it could also be a very good thing for Namecoin.

[franky1]

summary of whole topic.

some dude wants to become the come to service for address identification. basically the online addressbook.. while 99% of people know QR codes solves the non-problem this dude is trying to voice.

1. bitcoin principles - decentralisation. = WE DONT NEED to have a centralised addressbook, especially removing the decentralised nature of public keys

2. the addressbook is a reduction of anonymity

3. the addressbook needs to be flawlessly able to function for atleast 100 years without needing trust the addressbook service wont switch off, if it ever has a chance to be used as an optional feature

[Kiloday]

summary of whole topic.

some dude wants to become the come to service for address identification. basically the online addressbook.. while 99% of people know QR codes solves the non-problem this dude is trying to voice.

1. bitcoin principles - decentralisation. = WE DONT NEED to have a centralised addressbook, especially removing the decentralised nature of public keys

2. the addressbook is a reduction of anonymity

3. the addressbook needs to be flawlessly able to function for atleast 100 years without needing trust the addressbook service wont switch off, if it ever has a chance to be used as an optional feature

I thought the address book itself was also decentralized, since it uses the Namecoin blockchain and protocol to store entries:

OneName is a decentralized identity system (DIS) with a user directory made of entries in a decentralized key-value store (the Namecoin blockchain).

Nobody owns or controls OneName and users are in complete control of their data. OneName is open source, has a public design, and is for all to take part.

I probably won't be using this service because I'm quite comfortable with using addresses and QR codes, like most people here. But I still think it's a pretty nifty idea overall.

[alani123]

Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

Right now, Bitcoin is simply too difficult for the average person to use.

Paving the way for mainstream adoption, it seems, requires that we simplify and obfuscate away the confusing parts.

http://blog.onename.io/



what do you think? i like the idea.

Seriously? What would be hard to understand might be the technical side. But you don't need to have an idea of how it works in detail in order to use it. Maybe acquiring bitcoins could be time consuming at some cases but not hard. Bitcoin transactions on the other hand are the easiest thing ever. What would you do if you wanted to tranfer money otherwise? Go to a bank (or other money transfer service), waste your time waiting, give out your details and expect someone to handle it for you. Is that easier than copy-pasting a string of text and pressing a button? I don't think so.

[Este Nuno]

One huge issue that pops up with name based systems is phishing. Where as phishing with bitcoin addresses is much more difficult. I guess someone could try create a vanity gen address that copies the first few letters of an address or something. But I haven't heard of that happening yet.

[franky1]

I thought the address book itself was also decentralized, since it uses the Namecoin blockchain and protocol to store entries:

OneName is a decentralized identity system (DIS) with a user directory made of entries in a decentralized key-value store (the Namecoin blockchain).

Nobody owns or controls OneName and users are in complete control of their data. OneName is open source, has a public design, and is for all to take part.

I probably won't be using this service because I'm quite comfortable with using addresses and QR codes, like most people here. But I still think it's a pretty nifty idea overall.

well yea onename blockchain (an alt of namecoin) great idea as long as we dont need to use a website to manage the registration. due to the fact that its an altcoin, i say this because in practical terms: would people really want 2 clients running just to send bitcoin.. imagine wallet apps. thy would ned to talk to the onename blockchain to find a username. and im pretty sure that a whole onename blockchain wouldnt go onto a smartphone and be syncing all day long. hense the requirement of third party services to 'manage' it.

very soon all smartphone wallets will be just self contained raw transaction makers. no registering or being part of webwallet services. but forming the transaction right on the phone. and simply pushing out a signed TX to known PUSHtx portals/ relays / nodes. thus making the smartphone also decentralised. so my thinking on the QR codes as oppose to username is based on future proofing decentralisaion. which is harder to achive if a smart phone needs to store large blockchain of onename independently (not practical) or rly on a certain web service to manage (requiring trust of service)

[AliceWonder]

If you use OneName then do yourself a favor and register your u/username yourself within namecoin.

YOU want to be in control of the private key associated with u/username on the namecoin blockchain.

If you start using OneName and they have a vulnerability that allows their private keys to be compromised, someone can replace your bitcoin addresses with their own.

Also remember that there was a namecoin vulnerability (now fixed) that allowed anyone to take control of any namecoin namespace/key

I think it is better from a security perspective to not have your bitcoin address served from a third party where it is open to being altered by a man in the middle attack to someone else receives coins intended for you. And you may not even notice for some time because bitcoin addresses are funky looking.

[ajareselde]

Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

Right now, Bitcoin is simply too difficult for the average person to use.

Paving the way for mainstream adoption, it seems, requires that we simplify and obfuscate away the confusing parts.

http://blog.onename.io/



what do you think? i like the idea.

Alltho idea shows some interesting things, i disagree, and dont realy see the point.
If addresses are so complicated, one shouldnt even try to understand bitcoin.
I realy dont understand what is average persons IQ if they find anything here difficult.