ð
Original date posted:2017-10-30
ð Original message:Humans are very visually oriented, recognizing differences in images more
easily than differences in text.
What about generating an image based on the bytes of an address, using
something like identicon, used by gravatar? Any small change to the text
input produces a significantly different image.
-Danny
On Oct 30, 2017 7:43 AM, "Moral Agent via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> If you are going to rely on human verification of addresses, the best way
> might be map it to words.
>
> For example, with a 6000 word list, a 25 byte address (with a checksum)
> could be mapped to 16 words like this:
>
> vocally acquire removed unfounded
> euphemism sanctuary sectional driving
> entree freckles aloof vertebrae
> scribble surround prelaw effort
>
> In my opinion, that is much faster to verify than this:
>
> 13gQFTYHuAcfnZjXo2NFsy1E8JGSLwXHCZ
>
> or
>
> bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3
>
> Although I really do love Bech32.
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:13 AM, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> For example bc1qeklep85ntjz4605drds6aww9u0qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6hak
>> in 461e8a4aa0a0e75c06602c505bd7aa06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb00379d6 is
>> 62 bytes ! This is very very long. This will create lot of usability
>> problems in
>>
>> - Blockexplorers (atleast user should be visually able to compare in a
>> transaction having multiple outputs which one his address)
>> - Mobiles
>> - Payment terminals
>>
>> From my limited understanding, the purpose of inventing a bitcoin address
>> format is for usability and ease of identification (versus a ECDSA public
>> key), While I get the error/checksum capabilities Bech32 brings, any user
>> would prefer a 20 byte address with a checksum over an address that would
>> wrap several lines !!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ben Thompson <
>> thompson.benedictjames at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Checking the first few bytes of a Bitcoin Address should not be
>>> considered sufficient for ensuring that it is correct as it takes less than
>>> a second to generate a 3 character vanity address that matches the first 3
>>> characters of an address.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 11:44 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev, <
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> When I copy and paste bitcoin address, I double check the first few
>>>> bytes, to make sure I copied the correct one. This is to make sure some
>>>> rogue software is not changing the address, or I incorrectly pasted the
>>>> wrong address.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With Bech32 address, its seems like in this department we are taking as
>>>> step in the backward direction. With the traditional address, I could
>>>> compare first few bytes like 1Ko or 1L3. With bech32, bc1. is all I can see
>>>> and compare which is likely to be same anyway. Note that most users will
>>>> only compare the first few bytes only (since addresses themselves are very
>>>> long and will overflow in a mobile text box).
>>>>
>>>> Is there anyway to make the Bech32 addresses format more visually
>>>> distinct (atleast the first few bytes) ?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171030/ec4752a9/attachment.html>;
Danny Thorpe [ARCHIVE] /
npub1q5âŠ3ps87
2023-06-07 18:07:15
in reply to nevent1qâŠfh95
Author Public Key
npub1q5sgcakfxhw3ya93tvnpqeacvf32p6lw70hke53rkjnf9lhw9w8s43ps87Published at
2023-06-07 18:07:15Event JSON
{
"id": "ab1531e350e27de7e2fcd98804c281d9dc5b2bf1edf65abb689e2c0261b6a9d9",
"pubkey": "05208c76c935dd1274b15b261067b86262a0ebeef3ef6cd223b4a692feee2b8f",
"created_at": 1686161235,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"99f292b2dafe70e5ab76d8fd309880d2a72d2146add177116fb4d452a487a90c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4d08b1f6291aa8e6c4ee6822852f6fd5556fd3fcaf8bcce4a937ba885c893529",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"45fe5a57f42bb740cd879288f26f61d357e7d8ca7c7d97e9dd6278bf2257d1ee"
]
],
"content": "ð
Original date posted:2017-10-30\nð Original message:Humans are very visually oriented, recognizing differences in images more\neasily than differences in text.\n\nWhat about generating an image based on the bytes of an address, using\nsomething like identicon, used by gravatar? Any small change to the text\ninput produces a significantly different image.\n\n-Danny\n\nOn Oct 30, 2017 7:43 AM, \"Moral Agent via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e If you are going to rely on human verification of addresses, the best way\n\u003e might be map it to words.\n\u003e\n\u003e For example, with a 6000 word list, a 25 byte address (with a checksum)\n\u003e could be mapped to 16 words like this:\n\u003e\n\u003e vocally acquire removed unfounded\n\u003e euphemism sanctuary sectional driving\n\u003e entree freckles aloof vertebrae\n\u003e scribble surround prelaw effort\n\u003e\n\u003e In my opinion, that is much faster to verify than this:\n\u003e\n\u003e 13gQFTYHuAcfnZjXo2NFsy1E8JGSLwXHCZ\n\u003e\n\u003e or\n\u003e\n\u003e bc1qrp33g0q5c5txsp9arysrx4k6zdkfs4nce4xj0gdcccefvpysxf3qccfmv3\n\u003e\n\u003e Although I really do love Bech32.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 9:13 AM, shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e For example bc1qeklep85ntjz4605drds6aww9u0qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6hak\n\u003e\u003e in 461e8a4aa0a0e75c06602c505bd7aa06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb00379d6 is\n\u003e\u003e 62 bytes ! This is very very long. This will create lot of usability\n\u003e\u003e problems in\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Blockexplorers (atleast user should be visually able to compare in a\n\u003e\u003e transaction having multiple outputs which one his address)\n\u003e\u003e - Mobiles\n\u003e\u003e - Payment terminals\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e From my limited understanding, the purpose of inventing a bitcoin address\n\u003e\u003e format is for usability and ease of identification (versus a ECDSA public\n\u003e\u003e key), While I get the error/checksum capabilities Bech32 brings, any user\n\u003e\u003e would prefer a 20 byte address with a checksum over an address that would\n\u003e\u003e wrap several lines !!\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ben Thompson \u003c\n\u003e\u003e thompson.benedictjames at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Checking the first few bytes of a Bitcoin Address should not be\n\u003e\u003e\u003e considered sufficient for ensuring that it is correct as it takes less than\n\u003e\u003e\u003e a second to generate a 3 character vanity address that matches the first 3\n\u003e\u003e\u003e characters of an address.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 11:44 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev, \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e When I copy and paste bitcoin address, I double check the first few\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bytes, to make sure I copied the correct one. This is to make sure some\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e rogue software is not changing the address, or I incorrectly pasted the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e wrong address.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e With Bech32 address, its seems like in this department we are taking as\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e step in the backward direction. With the traditional address, I could\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e compare first few bytes like 1Ko or 1L3. With bech32, bc1. is all I can see\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e and compare which is likely to be same anyway. Note that most users will\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e only compare the first few bytes only (since addresses themselves are very\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e long and will overflow in a mobile text box).\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Is there anyway to make the Bech32 addresses format more visually\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e distinct (atleast the first few bytes) ?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171030/ec4752a9/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "583074484fe60920c25c3532d88e0efa14851b4c42817db88f04498c0ca62f46909144a4c07df309b1b4eb1bc72e2ef2c67958c4deda6781c2f29d58a66efc7a"
}