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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>) id 1UkYVa-00021d-17
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:37:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.54 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.54; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f54.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UkYVZ-0004rp-9L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:37:33 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ec20so2472950lab.27
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.126.9 with SMTP id mu9mr17003861lbb.99.1370518646549;
Thu, 06 Jun 2013 04:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.2.8 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 04:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:37:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKQ9vyis3X7PLDgFbYijWck-D_hVnp_xt+muhdzjyXeFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3786415f4aa04de7abdea
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(melvincarvalho[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UkYVZ-0004rp-9L
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] address collision and undependability
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:37:34 -0000
--001a11c3786415f4aa04de7abdea
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
There was a discussion on #bitcon-dev yesterday
I stated that it would be impractical to generate two bitcoin addresses,
such that they differed in exactly one character (modulo different
checksums).
The corollary to this is that if you find an address with a verifiable
signature. Changing one character of that address would have no known
private key, and hence be normally undependable.
Does that sound correct?
--001a11c3786415f4aa04de7abdea
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>There was a discussion on #bitcon-dev yeste=
rday<br><br></div>I stated that it would be impractical to generate two bit=
coin addresses, such that they differed in exactly one character (modulo di=
fferent checksums).<br>
<br></div>The corollary to this is that if you find an address with a verif=
iable signature.=A0 Changing one character of that address would have no kn=
own private key, and hence be normally undependable.<br><br></div>Does that=
sound correct?<br>
</div>
--001a11c3786415f4aa04de7abdea--
|
