From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D12C000E for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3179402F8 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:19:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 U3vAuIxXwpdM for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:19:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:56:19 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from premium29-m.web-hosting.com (premium29-m.web-hosting.com [68.65.120.189]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CA65402C1 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:19:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [189.174.18.76] (port=59856 helo=[192.168.1.88]) by premium29.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1mFU9m-00C4kX-Je for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:23:30 -0400 From: ts To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 23:23:25 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - premium29.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - cronosurf.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: premium29.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: ts@cronosurf.com X-Authenticated-Sender: premium29.web-hosting.com: ts@cronosurf.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 07:59:40 +0000 Subject: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 05:19:50 -0000 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 only at a technical level and does not avoid entering a valid but otherwise wrong address. Moreover, 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 very easy to do. However, it would greatly reduce the probability of performing transactions to a wrong address. Technically, this is very easy to implement. The only effort needed is agreeing on a checksum standard to generate the code. Once the standard is established, all wallet and exchange developers can start implementing this. Agreeing on a good name for this code would be helpful for a fast adoption (human readable checksum, verification code or 4DC are just examples). Obviously, this solution could be used for all other coins/networks. But ideally, each of them should have its own checksum algorithm, in order to further avoid sending funds to the wrong network. Especially when the address standard is the same like it is the case with BTC and BCH. Hopefully, Bitcoin can implement this first and serve as example-to-follow to other coins/networks. Cheers, TS