Re: [bitcoin-dev] Human readable checksum (verification code) to avoid errors on BTC public addresses

[Marek Palatinus <marek@palatinus.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5217 bytes --]

I fully agree with sipa and his reasoning that this proposal is not solving
any particular problem, but making it actually a bit worse.

Also, do you know what I hate more than copy&pasting bitcoin addresses?
Copy pasting zillion random fields for SEPA/wire transfers. And I believe
that a single copy pasta of a bitcoin address is a much better user
experience after all.

Best,
slush

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:08 AM ts via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Pieter, thanks for your comments. Here my thoughts:
>
> Pieter Wuille wrote on 8/29/21 9:24 AM:
> > On Saturday, August 28th, 2021 at 5:17 PM, ts via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Following up on my original proposal, I would like to get some more
> feedback of the community
> >>
> >> to see if this could be realized at some point. Also, any
> recommendations as to who to contact
> >>
> >> to get things rolling?
> >
> > I honestly don't understand the point of what you're suggesting.
>
> It is about creating a simple technical assistance that makes it more user
> friendly and less
> error prone to verify the entered address. For all types of users,
> including those who are
> less tech savvy.
>
>
> > * If you're concerned about random typos, this is something already
> automatically protected against through the checksum (both base58check or
> bech32/bech32m).
>
> I agree, but as mentioned in the original proposal, it is not about random
> typos (although
> this would help for other coins without integrated checksum of course),
> but rather about
> copy&paste errors (both technical or user caused).
>
>
> > * If you're concerned about accidentally entering the wrong - but
> honestly created - address, comparing any few characters of the address is
> just as good as any other. It doesn't even require the presence of a
> checksum. Looking at the last N characters, or the middle N, or anything
> except the first few, will do, and is just as good as an "external"
> checksum added at the end. For randomly-generated addresses (as honest ones
> are), each of those has exactly as much entropy.
>
> Correct. However, I believe that ADDITIONALLY to looking at N characters,
> a quick check of a 3
> or 4 digit code in bigger font next to the address would make for a better
> user experience.
> This gives the user the reassurance that there is definitely no error. I
> agree that most users
> with technical background including most of us here will routinely check
> the first/last N
> characters. I usually check the first 3 + last 3 characters. But I don't
> think this is very
> user friendly. More importantly, I once had the case that two addresses
> were very similar at
> precisely those 6 characters, and only a more close and concentrated look
> made me see the
> difference. Moreover, some inexperienced users that are not aware of the
> consequences of
> entering a wrong address (much worse than entering the wrong bank account
> in an online bank
> transfer) might forget to look at the characters altogether.
>
>
> > * If you're concerned about maliciously constructed addresses, which are
> designed to look similar in specific places, an attacker can just as easily
> make the external checksum collide (and having one might even worsen this,
> as now the attacker can focus on exactly that, rather than needing to focus
> on every other character).
>
> Not so concerned about this case, since this is a very special case that
> can only occur under
> certain circumstances. But taking this case also into consideration, this
> is why the user
> should use the verification code ADDITIONALLY to the normal way of
> verifying, not instead. If
> the attacker only focuses on the verification code, he will only be
> successful with users that
> ONLY look at this code. But if the attacker intends to be more successful,
> he now needs to
> create a valid address that is both similar in specific places AND
> produces the same
> verification code, which is way more difficult to achieve.
>
>
> > Things would be different if you'd suggest a checksum in another medium
> than text (e.g. a visual/drawing/colorcoding one). But I don't see any
> added value for an additional text-based checksum when addresses are
> already text themselves.
>
> Yes, a visual checksum could also work. Christopher Allen proposed to use
> LifeHash as an
> alternative. It would be a matter of balancing the more complex
> implementation and need of
> space in the app's layout with the usability and advantages of use. One
> advantage of the digit
> verification code is that it can be spoken in a call or written in a
> message.
>
> > This is even disregarding the difficulty of getting the ecosystem to
> adopt such changes.
>
> No changes are needed, only an agreement or recommendation on which
> algorithm for the code
> generation should be used. Once this is done, it is up to the developers
> of wallets and
> exchanges to implement this feature as they see fit.
>
> Greetings,
> TS
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6130 bytes --]