From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RcFeQ-000697-2V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:15:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RcFeP-00064J-8U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:15:34 +0000 Received: by wibhq7 with SMTP id hq7so923911wib.34 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:15:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.19.137 with SMTP id f9mr11700013wie.62.1324210527233; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:15:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:15:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EECDD5F.8030402@parhelic.com> References: <201112170132.26201.luke@dashjr.org> <1324138546.29801.3.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me> <4EECDD5F.8030402@parhelic.com> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:15:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) 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 (timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header -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: 1RcFeP-00064J-8U Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pubkey addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:15:34 -0000 2011/12/17, Jordan Mack : > While I think firstbits is an interesting idea, I agree with Matt on > this one. Firstbits, while being a clever idea, produces a less > desirable solution in comparison to the current alias proposals. I'm just saying is useful for the "green address" particular case. People don't have to write or memorize the firstbit address, it's just to have a shorter string to put it in the QR code. In this particular case you don't really care about "squatting" or typographic errors because the users are bot going to write or even see the firstbit address. I think aliases are a better solution for the "memorizing use case". But anyway, reading some comments I feel I'm missing something about this proposal. How can you save space by putting the whole public key instead of just the address (a hash of the public key) with each output? Is this what it's being proposed?