Visually Differentiable - Bitcoin Addresses

Visually Differentiable - Bitcoin Addresses
2017-10-30 12:14 ` Ricardo Filipe
  2017-10-30 12:49 ` Ben Thompson
  
From: shiva sitamraju @ 2017-10-30  8:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

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) ?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 835 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30  8:56 [bitcoin-dev] Visually Differentiable - Bitcoin Addresses shiva sitamraju

  2017-10-30 14:23   ` Ben Thompson
  2017-10-30 12:49 ` Ben Thompson
  
From: Ricardo Filipe @ 2017-10-30 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: shiva sitamraju, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

start double checking the last few bytes instead?

2017-10-30 8:56 GMT+00:00 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>:
> 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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30  8:56 [bitcoin-dev] Visually Differentiable - Bitcoin Addresses shiva sitamraju
  2017-10-30 12:14 ` Ricardo Filipe

  2017-10-30 13:13   ` shiva sitamraju
  
From: Ben Thompson @ 2017-10-30 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: shiva sitamraju, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1854 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30 12:49 ` Ben Thompson

  2017-10-30 14:26     ` Pieter Wuille
  2017-10-30 14:39     ` Moral Agent
  
From: shiva sitamraju @ 2017-10-30 13:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ben Thompson;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2157 bytes --]

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@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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3190 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30 12:14 ` Ricardo Filipe

  
From: Ben Thompson @ 2017-10-30 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ricardo Filipe, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion;  shiva sitamraju

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1531 bytes --]

The last few bytes can be generated to be the same also.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, 14:20 Ricardo Filipe via bitcoin-dev, <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> start double checking the last few bytes instead?
>
> 2017-10-30 8:56 GMT+00:00 shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>:
> > 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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2391 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30 13:13   ` shiva sitamraju

  2017-10-30 14:39     ` Moral Agent
  
From: Pieter Wuille @ 2017-10-30 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: shiva sitamraju, Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

On Oct 30, 2017 15:21, "shiva sitamraju via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

For example bc1qeklep85ntjz4605drds6aww9u0qr46qzrv5xswd35uhjuj8ahfcqgf6hak
in 461e8a4aa0a0e75c06602c505bd7aa06e7116ba5cd98fd6e046e8cbeb00379d6 is 62
bytes !


...

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 !!


That's an unfair comparison. You're pasting a P2WSH address which contains
a 256-bit hash.

A P2WPKH address (which only contains a 160-bit hash, just like P2PKH and
P2SH) in Bech32 is only 42 characters, not 62.

Cheers,

-- 
Pieter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1614 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30 13:13   ` shiva sitamraju
  2017-10-30 14:26     ` Pieter Wuille

  2017-10-30 16:15       ` Danny Thorpe
  
From: Moral Agent @ 2017-10-30 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3148 bytes --]

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@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@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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5034 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30 14:39     ` Moral Agent

  2017-10-30 16:48         ` Moral Agent
  
From: Danny Thorpe @ 2017-10-30 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Moral Agent, Bitcoin Dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3846 bytes --]

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@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@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@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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6353 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-10-30 16:15       ` Danny Thorpe

  
From: Moral Agent @ 2017-10-30 16:48 UTC ( / )
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion



Or like keyart:
https://pthree.org/2014/04/18/the-drunken-bishop-for-openpgp-keys/

Images would definitely be quicker to verify by a human, but I don't think
humans can RELIABLY verify anything close to 25 bytes through an image.

Our visual processing system is designed wrong for this purpose, since it
subconsciously "corrects" visual input to whatever we expect to see.

It isn't enough to say that any small change produces a "significantly"
different image. What you need is for it to be (practically) impossible to
construct an image that looks similar but is wrong, which is a far higher
standard. For example, any change to a private key renders a significantly
different address -- but it is possible for an attacker to grind their way
to a similar-looking address.

I would recommend displaying 16 words in a 4 x 4 grid, but otherwise with
no visual distractions.

For example, don't provide an image next to the words as a help. Don't use
colors to differentiate two different sets of 16 words. What will happen is
people will see a pattern that triggers a sensation of familiarity, and
they will not carefully verify all of the words -- which is what security
requires.

For higher security keys, you could grind an address with enough zeros at
the beginning to be expressed by fewer words. For example, you could grind
to an address that could be fully expressed with a 12 word (4 x 3) grid
that would be easier for a human to verify reliably.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail•com>
wrote:

> 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@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@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@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@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>