Bitcoin Forum
March 05, 2024, 01:03:02 AM *
News: Pie Baking Contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin Address "IPs to Domains"?  (Read 1432 times)
anshar (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 11:50:11 AM
 #1

Would this be possible?

To make a bitcoin address a short, memorisable alphanumeric sequence like domains do for IPs.
1709600582
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709600582

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709600582
Reply with quote  #2

1709600582
Report to moderator
1709600582
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709600582

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709600582
Reply with quote  #2

1709600582
Report to moderator
Unlike traditional banking where clients have only a few account numbers, with Bitcoin people can create an unlimited number of accounts (addresses). This can be used to easily track payments, and it improves anonymity.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1709600582
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709600582

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709600582
Reply with quote  #2

1709600582
Report to moderator
1709600582
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709600582

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709600582
Reply with quote  #2

1709600582
Report to moderator
1709600582
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1709600582

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1709600582
Reply with quote  #2

1709600582
Report to moderator
anshar (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 12:31:41 PM
 #2

Anyone?
thebitcoinquiz.com
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 12:40:33 PM
 #3

Would this be possible?

To make a bitcoin address a short, memorisable alphanumeric sequence like domains do for IPs.
I personally like the way bitcoin address is right now. Right now it isn't possible to make a mistake while copying/typing an address and making a typing mistake and sending the funds to completely anonymous person.

Stellars were based on sending coins to certain usernames.
I think its just a fine idea to let people have their alphanumeric series addresses  but I personally don't think that its going to bring a change in how we use bitcoin.

Stay hungry. Stay foolish.
chek2fire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3388
Merit: 1142


Intergalactic Conciliator


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 01:10:19 PM
 #4

I think is a great idea for a new startup to sell bitdomain for bitcoin adresses or for a future bitcoin core update to use bit domains in the top of the bitcoin address

http://www.bitcoin-gr.org
4411 804B 0181 F444 ADBD 01D4 0664 00E4 37E7 228E
ajareselde
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
 #5

Would this be possible?

To make a bitcoin address a short, memorisable alphanumeric sequence like domains do for IPs.

ive heard of address generators that try to make the best memorisable solution, but would be carefull tho.
theres a reason why addresses are the way they are.

cheers
cr1776
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 1295


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 01:17:56 PM
 #6

Pretty much anything is possible, it is a question of the ramifications of them. :-)

A couple of links:

https://medium.com/@davidshares/bitcoin-addresses-are-too-long-and-unmemorable-49635b4aed3e
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8227.0
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Firstbits
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
January 31, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
 #7

in some years these BTC addresses will disappear for sure.

R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 02:25:54 PM
 #8

Originally Bitcoin was able to send to an IP instead of an address, but it was disabled (for security concerns, I guess)

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 02:51:10 PM
 #9

Originally Bitcoin was able to send to an IP instead of an address, but it was disabled (for security concerns, I guess)
How is that supposed to be possible?
The receiver address is part of the transaction. You can't just put IP-addresses there instead of BTC-addresses.

https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 02:55:52 PM
 #10

Originally Bitcoin was able to send to an IP instead of an address, but it was disabled (for security concerns, I guess)
How is that supposed to be possible?
The receiver address is part of the transaction. You can't just put IP-addresses there instead of BTC-addresses.

I don't know the technical details, but there's a wiki entry about it. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/IP_Transactions

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
newIndia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1049


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:44:50 PM
 #11

Originally Bitcoin was able to send to an IP instead of an address, but it was disabled (for security concerns, I guess)
How is that supposed to be possible?
The receiver address is part of the transaction. You can't just put IP-addresses there instead of BTC-addresses.

I don't know the technical details, but there's a wiki entry about it. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/IP_Transactions

According to this link, that IP had to run BitcoinD on it, which used to generate address for the sender. That address was associated with the IP. But, as internet traffic can be intercepted and an attacker can overwrite the address against an IP, this method has been abandoned from the protocol.

yoursswathi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:57:01 PM
 #12

Originally Bitcoin was able to send to an IP instead of an address, but it was disabled (for security concerns, I guess)
How is that supposed to be possible?
The receiver address is part of the transaction. You can't just put IP-addresses there instead of BTC-addresses.

I don't know the technical details, but there's a wiki entry about it. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/IP_Transactions

According to this link, that IP had to run BitcoinD on it, which used to generate address for the sender. That address was associated with the IP. But, as internet traffic can be intercepted and an attacker can overwrite the address against an IP, this method has been abandoned from the protocol.

Any attacker can easily access the ip address fro the network router. So its not good to user IP addresses.
thebitcoinquiz.com
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 03:58:21 PM
 #13

Originally Bitcoin was able to send to an IP instead of an address, but it was disabled (for security concerns, I guess)
How is that supposed to be possible?
The receiver address is part of the transaction. You can't just put IP-addresses there instead of BTC-addresses.

I don't know the technical details, but there's a wiki entry about it. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/IP_Transactions
Never knew that there was something like this.
 and yes it is pretty obvious that this was vulnerable to attacks and so had to be discontinued.

Stay hungry. Stay foolish.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 04:05:33 PM
 #14

According to this link, that IP had to run BitcoinD on it, which used to generate address for the sender. That address was associated with the IP. But, as internet traffic can be intercepted and an attacker can overwrite the address against an IP, this method has been abandoned from the protocol.

Exactly. That's why the OP's proposal is not a good one.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
DannyHamilton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 4407



View Profile
January 31, 2015, 05:13:23 PM
 #15

The receiver address is part of the transaction. You can't just put IP-addresses there instead of BTC-addresses.

Actually, the address is not part of the transaction.

Addresses are just a standard way for humans to discuss a more complicated set of instructions.

What exists in the transaction is a set of instructions that say:

"In order for this unspent output to be spent, the spender must provide an ECDSA signature using the secp256k1 curve which can be validated with a public key that hashes to the following value when hashed first with SHA256 and then with RIPEMD160."

The "value" that is then provided is a 48 digit number that is calculated from the information in the bitcoin address and which is stored by computers in binary (resulting in a value that is represented by your computer with one hundred sixty 1's and 0's) and often displayed as 40 Hex Decimal digits.

That is the "standard" bitcoin output script and it is represented by addresses that start with a "1".  Specifically in the encoding to base 58, when the first 8 bits (the first byte) of an address are all 0's then those 8 bits are encoded as a single "1".  All bitcoin wallets are written to understand that when an address converted from base58 back to binary has a first byte of zero, it means to create the specific set of instructions described above.

There are other "scripts" that encumber the output with other requirements which can be used as well. For example, this is why you can see addresses that start with a '3'.  Those addresses have a completely different set of instructions that are part of the transaction, and wallets that accept addresses that start with a '3', know what script they are supposed to use for that indicator.

It is even possible to create a transaction with a script that has no standard address representation at all.  Since there is no standard indicator for such a custom script, you wouldn't be able to use a typical wallet to create such a transaction or to spend the output created by such a transaction.  You would instead need to create your own software to properly encode the script into the transaction, and your won software to meet the requirements of the script when you want to later spend it.
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
January 31, 2015, 06:09:00 PM
 #16

Memorable addresses have been tried and abandoned.

One Centralized solution is first bits.

However, you have to trust that website not to generate colliding addresses in order to prompt people to send funds to the wrong address. A more decentralized solution is Vanitygen, but you still have to be wary of potential collisions.

Because the Block-chain is public, it is best to avoid address re-use anyway. Best practice is to use a new address for each transaction. If your address is "well known", it is trivial to track your spends: even more so if your payments go to other "well known" addresses such as the laminated card used by your local coffee shop.

Coinjoin is meant to mitigate this (mostly a work in progress).

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
evok3d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 534
Merit: 250


The Protocol for the Audience Economy


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 09:34:31 PM
 #17

Memorable addresses have been tried and abandoned.

One Centralized solution is first bits.

However, you have to trust that website not to generate colliding addresses in order to prompt people to send funds to the wrong address. A more decentralized solution is Vanitygen, but you still have to be wary of potential collisions.

Because the Block-chain is public, it is best to avoid address re-use anyway. Best practice is to use a new address for each transaction. If your address is "well known", it is trivial to track your spends: even more so if your payments go to other "well known" addresses such as the laminated card used by your local coffee shop.

Coinjoin is meant to mitigate this (mostly a work in progress).


This is true. To acquire a name server would introduce centralization issues. I/O coins did a good job on this. You can see the details here:

http://www.docdroid.net/file/view/fl3r/usernames-paper.pdf

They did it in a decentralized manner, though the need for the servers introduces centralization issues again, which in the case of Bitcoin would be a very bad idea. Perhaps later on with the introduction of small contracts one could acquire such a thing. The other progressions are also interesting.

Cheers.

  M E   D I   A
P  R -    ▄▄███████▄▄   
  ▄██████▀██████▄ 
 ███████   ███████
▐██████     ██████▌
██████▌     ▐██████
▐██████     ██████▌
 ▀██████▄ ▄██████▀
   ▀███████████▀  
      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     
- T  O  C - O - L
MEDIA Protocol in Action
              ▄▄██████▄▄
            ▄████████████▄
           █████▌ ▀▀███████
   ▄████▄▄██████     ▀█████▌
 ▄███▀ ▀████████      ▐█████
▐███▌   ▐████████      ████▌
▐███    ██████████▄▄  ▐████
 ▀███▄▄████▀▀████████████▀
   ▀▀███▀▀     ▀▀████▀▀
   ▄▄▄████████████████▄▄▄    
 ████████████████████████▄  
▐███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀████▌ 
████████████▀▀▀        █████ 
█████████▀             █████ 
███████              ▐█████ 
█████▀               ██████ 
███▌              ▄██████ 
█████             ▄█████████ 
████▌          ▄▄██████████ 
▐████▄▄▄▄██████████████████▌ 
 ▀███████████████████████▀  
   ▀▀███████████████████▀    
anshar (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 10:36:51 PM
 #18

Memorable addresses have been tried and abandoned.

One Centralized solution is first bits.

However, you have to trust that website not to generate colliding addresses in order to prompt people to send funds to the wrong address. A more decentralized solution is Vanitygen, but you still have to be wary of potential collisions.

Because the Block-chain is public, it is best to avoid address re-use anyway. Best practice is to use a new address for each transaction. If your address is "well known", it is trivial to track your spends: even more so if your payments go to other "well known" addresses such as the laminated card used by your local coffee shop.

Coinjoin is meant to mitigate this (mostly a work in progress).

Will take a look, interesting.
tss
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 10:37:28 PM
 #19

as phillipsjk said.  it has been done.  
you would have to use, and thus trust, a third party to be the intermediary thus most probably wouldn't use it.  
anshar (OP)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 31, 2015, 10:38:22 PM
 #20

as phillipsjk said.  it has been done.  
you would have to use, and thus trust, a third party to be the intermediary thus most probably wouldn't use it.  

I would if the third party was extremely trustworthy.

Otherwise bitcoinwallet.com could work since you can have [NAME].bitcoinwallet.com as your wallet!
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!