Why Bitcoin Addresses Need to Go

[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.