MinAddress : Now remember your addresses easily

[CIYAM]

That will hold if we include checksum of MinAddress itself rather than checksum of Full Address, otherwise we are just adding extra characters which needs to be compared, so adding the extra characters from the beginning is same as adding extra characters form the end.

But as the last x characters of a BTC address *are* a checksum (for the rest of the address) then why not use that rather than create another checksum?

[1714238807]

1714238807

[CIYAM]

I think I am not able to explain what I mean  

Let's see if we can clarify it a bit (I might not have correctly understood the algo).

If we have:

1ciyam:2adfd then that is currently an okay MinAddress (assuming such an address exists in that block)

but if we have:

1ciyam:2adfe then "couldn't this also be a correct MinAddress" (if a new 1ciyam address had appeared in the next block)?

Assuming that this assumption is correct then:

1ciyam:2adfeTeju would be invalid as the Teju would *not match with the new 1ciyam address*.

(whereas 1ciyam:2adfdTeju would be valid as Teju does match the checksum of the 1ciyam address in the previous block)

EDIT: Or maybe there simply can't be two 1ciyam's in which case there is no such issue (part of the problem is that I am assuming 1ciyam rather than 1ci as I want to keep the "vanity address" prefix but maybe this is also *irrelevant*).

[BurtW]

In a way the checksum characters are "more important" than the rest of the characters since they contain the checksum of all the other characters.  But if you are not comparing the entire checksum area then there could be a false positive there also so, it would be nice to use them but if you don't want to then that is fine also.

Here are the two basic formats:

[hex block number]-[min head match][optionally more match]
[min head match][optionally more match]:[hex block number]

You could extend these formats for the paranoid if you wanted to:

[hex block number]-[min head match][optionally more match][-optional tail match]
[min head match][optionally more match]:[hex block number][:optional tail match]

[CIYAM]

Thanks @BurtW - although I am sure this whole idea *grates* on you (as I guess it does with many others) I think it is valuable to at least work out the best practice if one is going to "publish an address" (especially on a "billboard" or the like).

[CIYAM]

Now just as 1ciyam:2adfeTeju would be invalid similarly 1ciyam3htJ:2adfe would be invalid, both have extra 4 characters which needs to be compared. It does not matter if the extra characters are taken from beginning or end of address as only comparison is made, no checksum validation is made.

Aha - *but* it may be possible using vanitygen to come up with another address starting with 1ciyam3htJ in the next block (depending upon what GPU power you have with regards to vanitygen). To do the same with the "checksum", however, would be *much, much harder* (as you'd have to try many more addresses to get such a match).

[BurtW]

Aha - *but* it may be possible using vanitygen to come up with another address starting with 1ciyam3htJ in the next block (depending upon what GPU power you have with regards to vanitygen). To do the same with the "checksum", however, would be *much, much harder* (as you'd have to try many more addresses to get such a match).

To create a match for the entire checksum is almost equivalent to creating the entire address so - almost impossible.

To create a match for the very last character of the checksum = about the same as one more character in the original match, just a bit harder.

To create a match for the last two characters of the checksum harder than just matching two extra characters in the original match although I am finding it hard to calculate exactly how much harder.

But this whole "create a (near) match in the next block in the hopes that they make a mistake in the block number" is a bit of a stretch, don't you agree?

[CIYAM]

To create a match for the last two characters of the checksum harder than just matching two extra characters in the original match although I am finding it hard to calculate exactly how much harder.

But this whole "create a (near) match in the next block in the hopes that they make a mistake in the block number" is a bit of a stretch, don't you agree?

Maybe so - but we are talking about people "typing in from what they read" (so mistakes are bound to happen).

The fact that if you create any bad "brainwallet" it will have its funds exhausted within minutes suggests that people are happy to run such bots in the hope of finding BTC (e.g. the "horse staple battery" address).

[BurtW]

This is a bit different because it is impossible to predict which addresses will become popular whereas password prediction is pretty easy.

As an example if your address suddenly became very popular with dozens of BTC donations per day then someone might want to try to get the near misses BUT they can't get the near misses in the lower digits because they cannot put anything into the blockchain retroactively between your block and today.

They could, of course, try for the misses in the appropriate and possible upper digits of the block number.  

Multiple digit changes may not be worth the effort.  

The block number typos are the only ones they can even try to do since they cannot go back to your original block to try for typos in the match portion.

[ab8989]

Let me offer a completely different disadvantage of this scheme:

This invention makes bitcoins overall less appealing to big group of people while offering pretty much nothing in return.

We currently have a lot of tech wizards using bitcoin who like being in some kind of elite group because they have spent thousands of hours studying all the nooks and crannies of bitcoin and it makes them feel good about themselves and they like every additional obscure detail that they could add to bitcoin.

However there is a massive group of people who have not tried bitcoin yet and they are going to be turned down because of all the complexity involved and we have to scale down the amount of details they need to understand if we want to make them like bitcoin.

The only practical result if people start using using addresses like "1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU:2adfdTejU" is to make everything look more complicated and so making the bitcoin system less appealing to majority of people.

[BurtW]

Maybe you missed it in there among all this discussion of the technical details and possibilities but the proposal does greatly shorten the address from:

Code:

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU <-- standard Bitcoin address (33 characters)

to:

Code:

2adfd-1ci                         <-- equivalent short form address (only 9 characters)

I really like the proposal as a way to shorten used addresses.  It is a really slick idea and does make the Bitcoin addresses much easier to read, say, and remember.

I am opposed to address reuse, not this proposal per se.

[BurtW]

CIYAM wants a single address form that shows that someone can use all of the following to find his address:

Code:

1ciyam                                Firstbits form
2adfd-1ci                             Original form from this proposal
1ci:2adfd                             Alternate form of 2adfd-1ci
1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU     Full Bitcoin address

all three forms combined and posted together:

1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU:2adfd

Here is another one all decked out:

1BurtWEejbnKeBRsvcydJvsNztB1bXV5iQ:244fd (NOTE: I no longer use or support vanity addresses)

Kind of cool that you can see who is "older", could become a "badge of honor" type thing.

If I am ever in a bind and need to remember an emergency Bitcoin address I have already memorized  "244fd-1bu [iQ]", I go to http://www.minaddress.info, type in 244fd-1bu, check that the resulting address ends in "iQ" and wala, my old vanity address.

[BurtW]

Why does the address  18uTXyQubfaYrkbQDdaXhzd2ALEY5YN77B not work?

[BurtW]

Due to cheating I had to restart my game based on the MinAddress site.

0.1 BTC to the winner.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=779081.0

[goose20]

Why does the address  18uTXyQubfaYrkbQDdaXhzd2ALEY5YN77B not work?

It working now, due to large number of transactions in the block, it was hitting the max file size, I have updated it so that it works properly, sorry for inconvenience.

Regards

Would this also be the issue for: 1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb

As this address does nit work?

Thx

[BurtW]

Why does the address  18uTXyQubfaYrkbQDdaXhzd2ALEY5YN77B not work?

It working now, due to large number of transactions in the block, it was hitting the max file size, I have updated it so that it works properly, sorry for inconvenience.

Regards

Would this also be the issue for: 1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb

As this address does nit work?

Thx

https://blockchain.info/address/1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb?offset=6700&filter=0 (talk about address reuse!  I expect the massive number of transactions to this one single address, 6726, is probably what is causing the issue)

https://blockchain.info/tx/ea4f4e7a572348ea732229a5f7e618ed10d8dd8e298c434a0ec0332d91ddd227 (looks pretty standard to me)

https://blockchain.info/block-index/306124  (only 30 transactions)

https://blockchain.info/block-height/243752  (I see nothing strange)

[DannyHamilton]

Minaddres.info takes the data from http://blockexplorer.com/ and blockexplorer is giving the below error [ http://blockexplorer.com/address/1QHzyM4yFDVdxQyijsFLVjzDJahZNfKQQb ] for this address because of which it is not working.

Code:

ERROR: Address ledger is extremely large. Contact me if you really need the data.

Since my message was removed from BurtW's thread (it really belonged here anyhow):

So, MinAddress does not work for addresses that have sent&received a large number of transactions?

That doesn't seem very user-friendly.  MinAddress encourages people to re-use addresses (since you don't even have a MinAddress until after you've received at least one transaction at the address), but then breaks if they use the address too much.

You might want to look into building your own database of MinAddresses rather than relying on an API from BlockExplorer.com

[dooglus]

Isn't this basically just "firstbits" (which seems to have disappeared a while back)?

"firstbits" is harder to use, because in order to expand a firstbits address you need to search from the genesis block onwards until you find it.

With MinAddress the block number is in the address so there's much less searching required.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Nice project! Is there any other way to make it short? Re-using the address is not good, so any other way???

  ~~MZ~~

[ffe]

Nice project! Is there any other way to make it short? Re-using the address is not good, so any other way???

  ~~MZ~~

Let's be clear -

Re-using the address to receive multiple times is completely ok.

Partial spending from an address is slightly less secure and can hurt anonymity. This is because you'll be leaving coins at an address where the full public key is known. "When you spend, spend the whole balance and don't use that address any longer" is the message here.

(Note, some feel keeping a few coins at an address used for every day spending and spending multiple times is fine because it is still quite secure.)

[BurtW]

Nice project! Is there any other way to make it short? Re-using the address is not good, so any other way???

  ~~MZ~~

Let's be clear -

Re-using the address to receive multiple times is completely ok secure but reduces your privacy and by extension the privacy of the entire Bitcoin system.

Partial spending from an address is slightly less secure and can hurt anonymity and privacy. This is because you'll be leaving coins at an address where the full public key is known. "When you spend, spend the whole balance and don't use that address any longer" is the message here. [I like that message]

(Note, some feel keeping a few coins at an address used for every day spending and spending multiple times is fine because it is still quite secure but reduces privacy.)

Fixed up a bit.

Please read my rant up above in this very thread for more details:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774741.msg8758673#msg8758673