FirstBits + VanityGen

[nimda]

Hi, and sorry that I couldn't figure out where to post this.

Can someone please clear up this problem I'm seeing?
Lets say someone uses firstbits, to come up with something like 1Fwi3gx. From what I see in the VanityGen thread, it would not take long to generate another address with that prefix. What's stopping someone from doing so, in order to receive coins meant for someone else?

[1713514059]

1713514059

[1713514059]

1713514059

[1713514059]

1713514059

[1713514059]

1713514059

[DeathAndTaxes]

just because you have another address w/ the same prefix it won't have the same firstbit.

The first address starting w/ "1Fwi3gx" might have first bit of "1Fwi3" your 2nd place address might have a first bit of "1Fwi3d".
Nobody looking up "1Fwi3" will ever get anything but the correct address.

If that didn't make sense then just try it yourself and see.  Make 4 addresses have the same prefix.  Send a couple cents to each one and then check their first bits.

[Blazr]

Hi, and sorry that I couldn't figure out where to post this.

Can someone please clear up this problem I'm seeing?
Lets say someone uses firstbits, to come up with something like 1Fwi3gx. From what I see in the VanityGen thread, it would not take long to generate another address with that prefix. What's stopping someone from doing so, in order to receive coins meant for someone else?

The oldest address in the blockchain that starts with those firstbits is the one that'll be used.

[rjk]

Hi, and sorry that I couldn't figure out where to post this.

Can someone please clear up this problem I'm seeing?
Lets say someone uses firstbits, to come up with something like 1Fwi3gx. From what I see in the VanityGen thread, it would not take long to generate another address with that prefix. What's stopping someone from doing so, in order to receive coins meant for someone else?

The oldest address in the blockchain that starts with those firstbits is the one that'll be used.

Yeah, if you use a good firstbits looker-upper. Firstbits.com is major fail when it comes to this, and is often inaccurate. Use blockchain.info.

EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75665.msg936807#msg936807

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Hi, and sorry that I couldn't figure out where to post this.

Can someone please clear up this problem I'm seeing?
Lets say someone uses firstbits, to come up with something like 1Fwi3gx. From what I see in the VanityGen thread, it would not take long to generate another address with that prefix. What's stopping someone from doing so, in order to receive coins meant for someone else?

The oldest address in the blockchain that starts with those firstbits is the one that'll be used.

Yeah, if you use a good firstbits looker-upper. Firstbits.com is major fail when it comes to this, and is often inaccurate. Use blockchain.info.

EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75665.msg936807#msg936807

There is a simple solution, I believe, to this problem, one of which I will pen shortly.

~Bruno~

[FreeMoney]

Hi, and sorry that I couldn't figure out where to post this.

Can someone please clear up this problem I'm seeing?
Lets say someone uses firstbits, to come up with something like 1Fwi3gx. From what I see in the VanityGen thread, it would not take long to generate another address with that prefix. What's stopping someone from doing so, in order to receive coins meant for someone else?

The oldest address in the blockchain that starts with those firstbits is the one that'll be used.

Yeah, if you use a good firstbits looker-upper. Firstbits.com is major fail when it comes to this, and is often inaccurate. Use blockchain.info.

EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75665.msg936807#msg936807

Yes, I'm very sorry. Firstbits.com had some upper/lower case mistakes recently.

It works correctly now. If something still seems wrong please let me know.

Our lookups are often slow also, I suggest you use blockchain.info.

[rjk]

Yeah, if you use a good firstbits looker-upper. Firstbits.com is major fail when it comes to this, and is often inaccurate. Use blockchain.info.

EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75665.msg936807#msg936807

Yes, I'm very sorry. Firstbits.com had some upper/lower case mistakes recently.

It works correctly now. If something still seems wrong please let me know.

Our lookups are often slow also, I suggest you use blockchain.info.

For my specific instance, I still am seeing the same problem. Does firstbits.com consider the order of a sendmany transaction?

Also, as one who has implemented the firstbits functionality, how hard to you think it would be to build into the satoshi client, and do you think that would be a good idea?

[FreeMoney]

Yeah, if you use a good firstbits looker-upper. Firstbits.com is major fail when it comes to this, and is often inaccurate. Use blockchain.info.

EDIT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75665.msg936807#msg936807

Yes, I'm very sorry. Firstbits.com had some upper/lower case mistakes recently.

It works correctly now. If something still seems wrong please let me know.

Our lookups are often slow also, I suggest you use blockchain.info.

For my specific instance, I still am seeing the same problem. Does firstbits.com consider the order of a sendmany transaction?

Also, as one who has implemented the firstbits functionality, how hard to you think it would be to build into the satoshi client, and do you think that would be a good idea?

I actually have no technical skill at all. I just had the idea and got SgtSpike to implement it. The blockchain.info implementation was done separately.

I'll find out about sendmany and let people know.

I do not think integration into the main client is a good idea. Firstbits is risky, a typo costs real money. Satoshi integration is too much of an endorsement for new users to start using it without really thinking about it.