1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DD3C000E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:34:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA874023C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:34:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.099
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id gwx-UMrZBjsK
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:34:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4319.protonmail.ch (mail-4319.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.19])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 783C64022C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:34:45 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:34:36 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1629110082;
bh=50nxUz33LA9H3gYj3dGY8tO+1dUYralaL41xq+dl3xg=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=Y1Pv0spgkhrEYP//+LjdFvTFpXvS+6RYGCx8GxsEpbtEuOK0dnJJcf9shQSGNtq7t
iFX1SNh0q8L2kh+L+UeZH66GZcDJVVPCeH/N237vx9pXKy1Iq58kfvkMyOpcH95yTY
SiQU4yNRpe27dk+Ve/6fI+YT+A+cUt4mynA1lgyA=
To: ts <ts@cronosurf.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <aO1qYUmtGXPJupl0ol3E221AR4XKwqriqk3Y5fVS2_asquaV8Vaxkb4Ffq2EiVMrR5bb4cXAzxAV3cOciaYsuqJoFXoc6vTOoveKURVTmLU=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f31bc6b0-f9b3-be4c-190c-fc292821b24b@cronosurf.com>
References: <f31bc6b0-f9b3-be4c-190c-fc292821b24b@cronosurf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Human readable checksum (verification code) to
avoid errors on BTC public addresses
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:34:49 -0000
Good morning TS,
> Entering a BTC address for a transaction can pose a risk of error (human =
or technical). While
> there is a checksum integrated in BTC addresses already, this is used onl=
y at a technical
> level and does not avoid entering a valid but otherwise wrong address. Mo=
reover, it does not
> improve the overall user experience.
>
> In case this hasn't been discussed before, I propose to implement a 3 or =
4 digit code (lets
> call it 4DC for this text), generated as checksum from the address. This =
4DC should be shown
> in all wallets next to the receiving address. When entering a new address=
to send BTC, the
> sending wallet should also show the 4DC next to the entered address. This=
way, the sending
> person can easily verify that the resulting 4DC matches the one from the =
receiving address.
>
> This would mean that a receiver would not only send his public address to=
the sender, but also
> the 4DC. A minor disadvantage since a) it is not mandatory and b) it is v=
ery easy to do.
> However, it would greatly reduce the probability of performing transactio=
ns to a wrong address.
>
> Technically, this is very easy to implement. The only effort needed is ag=
reeing on a checksum
> standard to generate the code. Once the standard is established, all wall=
et and exchange
> developers can start implementing this.
I think the "only" effort here is going to be the main bulk of the effort, =
and it will still take years of agreement (or sipa doing it, because every =
review is "either sipa made it, or we have to check *everything* in detail =
for several months to make sure it is correct").
In any case --- the last 5 characters of a bech32 string are already a huma=
n-readable 5-digit code, with fairly good properties, why is it not usable =
for this case?
On the other side of the coin, if you say "the existing bech32 checksum is =
automatically checked by the software", why is forcing something to be manu=
ally checked by a human better than leaving the checking to software?
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
