Re: Is this address format (e.g.: BTC.443860.3.56318) a good idea?
⭐ Merited by ETFbitcoin (1)
Hi Danny,
first let me give you triple thanks for your comments.
First, because it is obvious you have taken time and consideration to read and reply my long post.
Second, because it is clear you understand the issues at stake here and have written a well articulated answer stating your point of view.
Third, because it is also obvious you hate the idea, which I totally respect. And yet you managed to write a long post without any personal attacks.
It doesn't matter IMHO if we deeply disagree on any technical matter as long as we can have a polite exchange of ideas. Most of the people in the community have a vested interest in improving the bitcoin ecosystem. I am deeply sorry when I see people offending other people to advance their cause. The block size debate is a sad example of that. Losing giants like Mike Hearn because of those personal attacks is a tragedy and it is totally unfair.
Having said that, let's go to the battle
...
Just like TCP/IP and UDP and HTTPS and FTP and routers and switches and gateways and firewalls need to be much more user friendly for the internet to achieve the kind of reach we all expect it to?
The solution is to add layers on top of the technology, not to change the underlying technology or expect the average user to understand the underlying technology. I realize that your suggestion IS a layer on top of the existing technology, it's just a bad layer that discourages best practices. Again, I have to disagree that THIS restricted reuse of addresses is not a best practice. Even if you still disagree with my disagreement, at least, you'll have to concede that part of the beauty of bitcoin is its permissionless nature. I am not forcing anyone to use this system. I am just proposing an alternative that I believe useful -for certain use cases, not as a general rule-.
As an added bonus, I am going to cite another disadvantage I previously forgot to mention (I'm trying to be honest here, no matter how much I love my own idea...). Using this scheme of payments requires the receiver of the funds to pay an additional fee. I understand this is buying extra security. But again, isn't it nice that you have the freedom to trade easy of use security over cost? The way I see it, if you don't like this addressing scheme, or don't think your transaction deserves an extra fee, by any means, use the Base58 payment.
Then I guess we don't need to change anything, because it is already succeeding as a payment platform. Given your statement, I guess that must be proof that we've already "improved its non-technical deficits".
I can't possibly agree on that. I don't know your expectations for bitcoin. I expect nothing but total world domination...
I can't possibly know what percentage of the transaction every block contains is used for a payment. Let's say it is 100%. That would mean about 3 transactions per second with full blocks. According to this Visa handles about 2000 per second. There is much to be done in every front before we can proclaim sucess.
And we will. But not with this proposal.
Who knows? The beauty of Layer 2 proposals is that they are unstoppable it somebody is willing to implement them and some users want to use them. That permissionless property of bitcoin is a great asset of the ecosystem. Let a hundred flowers blossom...
Again, thank you very much for sharing your wisdom and tone!
Final note: Excuse me for ending the post citing Mao. Probably not the best person to quote from a libertarian like myself, but I like to say that you can learn something even from the most obnoxious person you know.
first let me give you triple thanks for your comments.
First, because it is obvious you have taken time and consideration to read and reply my long post.
Second, because it is clear you understand the issues at stake here and have written a well articulated answer stating your point of view.
Third, because it is also obvious you hate the idea, which I totally respect. And yet you managed to write a long post without any personal attacks.
It doesn't matter IMHO if we deeply disagree on any technical matter as long as we can have a polite exchange of ideas. Most of the people in the community have a vested interest in improving the bitcoin ecosystem. I am deeply sorry when I see people offending other people to advance their cause. The block size debate is a sad example of that. Losing giants like Mike Hearn because of those personal attacks is a tragedy and it is totally unfair.
Having said that, let's go to the battle
...The way I see it, using this way to transfer (a decent amount of) money has the following benefits:
a) Way less scary I disagree. I don't find bitcoin addresses scary at all.Ok Danny, you have a "Legendary" badge in this forum. I bet you aren't easily scared by anything bitcoin related. But try the mother of your neighbor
b) Compact (15 decimal digits in the example vs 34 case sensitive alphanumeric positions) See? We can agree on something!
c) Possible to be dictated and typed easily (only needs the numerical keypad) Bitcoin addresses can also be dictated and typed easily.Ok. I'll give you this point if you concede that writing a shorter address made up of decimal digits and dots is EASIER and faster than writing a longer series of case sensitive alphanumeric characters.This is particularly true if you are using a soft keyboard on a cell phone (Ever tried to type a long random Wifi password?).
d) Secure (mostly but not only, because of the checksum) Bitcoin addresses also have a checksum. Never said they haven't. In fact -the way I am presenting this idea- Base58 addresses have a stronger checksum (32 bits vs -let's say- 20 bits). Point for you but... If we use the amount transferred to the UTXO anchoring the address as an added verification step -could be optional- then I believe we are very close or even have a significant edge.
e) Familiar; very similar to what regular people use to transfer money
f) Doesn't need any external database or service, it just makes use of the blockchain For most, the blockchain IS an external database. Bitcoin addresses on the otherhand do NOT need an external database. Ok, but if we were to reject any improvement because it needs access to the bitcoin blockchain then our hands would really be tied. It is hard to think about any meaningful addition to the bitcoin ecosystem that does not rely on querying the blockchain. What I meant in this point is that you don't have to rely on any database other than bitcoin's own.
g) The implementation in a wallet is ridiculously easy Lite (SPV) wallets don't store the entire blockchain. Bitcoin addresses are MUCH easier to implement in a wallet.Maybe, but those are already implemented. I only mean they are easy to implement. SPV clients could use any of the several APIs available (I'd use more than one, to be safer though)
h) Doesn't require major testing, since it doesn't change the bitcoin protocol in any way Anything handling people's wealth should be tested. Bitcoin addresses are already tested for more than 8 years.Fair enough. But this pointer addresses are ALSO bitcoin addresses. They inherit all of that security because they are really the same. I said any major testing. Of course they need testing, just not the kind of testing you can expect from some big change like SegWit of LN
i) It is completely optional. You can use if you need it and when you need it. Bitcoin addresses are already optional. Your solution isn't optional if the other party hasn't implemented your solution, or if the other party refuses to accept traditional addresses.I don't see this as an either or situation. If I am requesting you a payment using this pointer addressing scheme, I would send you BOTH the tradicional address in a Base58Check format AND the pointer address. That way, you have an additional way of checking that you are sending funds to the proper destination. So, even if your wallet hasn't implemented the pointer address scheme yet, you can still complete the transaction.
g) You can even use it without a software implementation (Just use the blockchain.info website) I find blockchain.info's website to be VERY unreliable.I don't have the same experience with blockchain.info; I am pretty happy with it myself. However, there are several webs that offer similar services.
It has also the following challenges:
a) Not implemented anywhere. Just an idea (yet)
b) Not valid for every transaction (it doesn't intend to, anyway)
c) It could have some security risks I am not capable of seeing (that's the top reason I posted this, btw)
d) Needs a standard (Anyone would like to help me writing a BIP for it?)
e) Best practice is to NEVER re-use a bitcoin address. This "solution" is useless for everyone except those that are already choosing to ignore this advice. While I understand and mostly agree with the general concept that reusing addresses is a bad idea, I don't think it is fair to say that it is NEVER a good idea. Both major concerns of address reuse (loss of privacy and smaller security) do not apply in this case, if you use this scheme the way I explained, each address should only be used twice for a payment (three at most if you want to sent a partial transaction first, for added security) , and they can be all spent at once, thus preserving both safety and privacy.
b) Compact (15 decimal digits in the example vs 34 case sensitive alphanumeric positions) See? We can agree on something!
but... If we use the amount transferred to the UTXO anchoring the address as an added verification step -could be optional- then I believe we are very close or even have a significant edge.e) Familiar; very similar to what regular people use to transfer money
It has also the following challenges:
a) Not implemented anywhere. Just an idea (yet)
b) Not valid for every transaction (it doesn't intend to, anyway)
c) It could have some security risks I am not capable of seeing (that's the top reason I posted this, btw)
d) Needs a standard (Anyone would like to help me writing a BIP for it?)
e) Best practice is to NEVER re-use a bitcoin address. This "solution" is useless for everyone except those that are already choosing to ignore this advice. While I understand and mostly agree with the general concept that reusing addresses is a bad idea, I don't think it is fair to say that it is NEVER a good idea. Both major concerns of address reuse (loss of privacy and smaller security) do not apply in this case, if you use this scheme the way I explained, each address should only be used twice for a payment (three at most if you want to sent a partial transaction first, for added security) , and they can be all spent at once, thus preserving both safety and privacy.
Bitcoin will have to become much more user friendly to achieve the kind of reach we all expect it to.
Just like TCP/IP and UDP and HTTPS and FTP and routers and switches and gateways and firewalls need to be much more user friendly for the internet to achieve the kind of reach we all expect it to?
The solution is to add layers on top of the technology, not to change the underlying technology or expect the average user to understand the underlying technology. I realize that your suggestion IS a layer on top of the existing technology, it's just a bad layer that discourages best practices. Again, I have to disagree that THIS restricted reuse of addresses is not a best practice. Even if you still disagree with my disagreement
, at least, you'll have to concede that part of the beauty of bitcoin is its permissionless nature. I am not forcing anyone to use this system. I am just proposing an alternative that I believe useful -for certain use cases, not as a general rule-.As an added bonus, I am going to cite another disadvantage I previously forgot to mention (I'm trying to be honest here, no matter how much I love my own idea...). Using this scheme of payments requires the receiver of the funds to pay an additional fee. I understand this is buying extra security. But again, isn't it nice that you have the freedom to trade easy of use security over cost? The way I see it, if you don't like this addressing scheme, or don't think your transaction deserves an extra fee, by any means, use the Base58 payment.
If we neglect the social aspects of bitcoin, by not improving also its non-technical deficits, it won't succeed as a payment platform.
Then I guess we don't need to change anything, because it is already succeeding as a payment platform. Given your statement, I guess that must be proof that we've already "improved its non-technical deficits".
I can't possibly agree on that. I don't know your expectations for bitcoin. I expect nothing but total world domination...
I can't possibly know what percentage of the transaction every block contains is used for a payment. Let's say it is 100%. That would mean about 3 transactions per second with full blocks. According to this Visa handles about 2000 per second. There is much to be done in every front before we can proclaim sucess.Maybe what we have is enough for it to succeed as a settlement network for an investor to be happy, but I think we can do much better.
And we will. But not with this proposal.
Who knows? The beauty of Layer 2 proposals is that they are unstoppable it somebody is willing to implement them and some users want to use them. That permissionless property of bitcoin is a great asset of the ecosystem. Let a hundred flowers blossom...
Again, thank you very much for sharing your wisdom and tone!
Final note: Excuse me for ending the post citing Mao. Probably not the best person to quote from a libertarian like myself, but I like to say that you can learn something even from the most obnoxious person you know.