Firstbits - Revision history

Luke-jr: Remove irrelevant statement that falsely implies Satoshi has anything to do with Firstbits

2013-07-18T07:09:29Z

Remove irrelevant statement that falsely implies Satoshi has anything to do with Firstbits

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 18 July 2013
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Unlike Bitcoin addresses, firstbits are deemed assigned in a '''case-insensitive''' manner.		Unlike Bitcoin addresses, firstbits are deemed assigned in a '''case-insensitive''' manner.

	~~The firstbits of the very first address to be used by [[Satoshi]] in the [[genesis block]] of the [[block chain]] will have been '''"1"'''.~~

	==Criticism==		==Criticism==

Gmaxwell: /* Encourages the use of centralized services */

2013-07-18T06:19:04Z

Encourages the use of centralized services

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:19, 18 July 2013
Line 39:		Line 39:

	=== Encourages the use of centralized services ===		=== Encourages the use of centralized services ===
	Because of the cost and storage of creating and maintaining a separate index for firstbits queries an otherwise secure SPV user may feel pressured to use a centralized service to resolve firstbits prefixes given to him by other parties. There are multiple centralized firstbits resolution services already. If a resolution service is compromised and returns wrong results funds will be sent to the wrong destinations.		Because of the cost and storage of creating and maintaining a separate index for firstbits queries an otherwise secure SPV user may feel pressured to use a centralized service to resolve firstbits prefixes given to him by other parties. There are multiple centralized firstbits resolution services already. If a resolution service is compromised and returns wrong results funds will be sent to the wrong destinations. If users are going to use a centralized service any way a centralized alternative to firstbits can be easily created which lacks most of the above problems (at the expense of being centralized).

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* [[vanitygen]]		* [[vanitygen]]

Gmaxwell: /* Criticism */ more changes.

2013-07-18T05:50:37Z

Criticism: more changes.

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:50, 18 July 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:

	=== Most good names have already been snatched up ===		=== Most good names have already been snatched up ===
	The near zero cost of producing many firstbits addresses encouraged people to go out and mass register whole dictionaries of names. This is especially true for vanity addresses, where they may be "squatted" like domain names in hopes of selling them to a trademark or obvious company/person they represent. But since Firstbits addresses cannot be securely transferred to a new owner— because the original party might retain a copy of the private key— many of these names are likely forever useless. New firstbits users often have to settle for longer names.		The near zero cost of producing many firstbits addresses encouraged people to go out and mass register whole dictionaries of names. This is especially true for vanity addresses, where they may be "squatted" like domain names in hopes of selling them to a trademark or obvious company/person they represent. But since Firstbits addresses cannot be securely transferred to a new owner— because the original party might retain a copy of the private key— many of these names are likely forever useless. New firstbits users often have to settle for longer names. An alternative design— for example, requiring progressively higher transaction fees to rate limit registration— could have mitigated this "gold rush", but that isn't how firstbits was designed.

	=== Vulnerable to confusion ===		=== Vulnerable to confusion ===

Gmaxwell: /* Criticism */ more revisions

2013-07-18T05:43:30Z

Criticism: more revisions

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 18 July 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:

	=== Blockchain bloat ===		=== Blockchain bloat ===
	Firstbits ~~effectively~~ encourages its users to bloat the blockchain with a dummy send ~~to their address,~~ in order to get the shortest possible firstbits before anyone else.		Firstbits' design encourages its users to bloat the blockchain with a dummy self-send transactions in order to get the shortest possible firstbits before anyone else. The creator of firstbits himself is known to have mass registered numerous identifiers to get many short addresses before other people. The transaction churn created by firstbits registrations increases the size of the blockchain and make operating Bitcoin nodes more expensive and cause them to take longer to perform their initial synchronization. This affects all Bitcoin users, even without their consent to Firstbits.
	~~This~~ is ~~especially true for vanity~~ addresses~~, where they may be "squatted" like domain names in hopes of selling them to a trademark or obvious company/person they represent~~.
	~~Not only is it effectively encouraged~~ by the ~~design~~ of ~~Firstbits, but~~ the ~~creator himself is known~~ to ~~have squatted numerous identifiers in this way~~.
	This affects all Bitcoin users, even without their consent to Firstbits.

	=== Most good names ~~were rapidly~~ snatched up ===		=== Most good names have already been snatched up ===
	The near zero cost of producing many firstbits addresses encouraged people to go out and mass register whole dictionaries of names. Firstbits addresses cannot be securely transferred because the original party might retain a copy of the private ~~key, so~~ many of these names are likely forever useless~~, and new~~ firstbits users often have to settle for longer names.		The near zero cost of producing many firstbits addresses encouraged people to go out and mass register whole dictionaries of names. This is especially true for vanity addresses, where they may be "squatted" like domain names in hopes of selling them to a trademark or obvious company/person they represent. But since Firstbits addresses cannot be securely transferred to a new owner— because the original party might retain a copy of the private key— many of these names are likely forever useless. New firstbits users often have to settle for longer names.

	=== Vulnerable to confusion ===		=== Vulnerable to confusion ===

Gmaxwell: more concerns about firstbits

2013-07-18T05:37:34Z

more concerns about firstbits

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:37, 18 July 2013
Line 18:		Line 18:
	Not only is it effectively encouraged by the design of Firstbits, but the creator himself is known to have squatted numerous identifiers in this way.		Not only is it effectively encouraged by the design of Firstbits, but the creator himself is known to have squatted numerous identifiers in this way.
	This affects all Bitcoin users, even without their consent to Firstbits.		This affects all Bitcoin users, even without their consent to Firstbits.

			=== Most good names were rapidly snatched up ===
			The near zero cost of producing many firstbits addresses encouraged people to go out and mass register whole dictionaries of names. Firstbits addresses cannot be securely transferred because the original party might retain a copy of the private key, so many of these names are likely forever useless, and new firstbits users often have to settle for longer names.

			=== Vulnerable to confusion ===
			Because firstbits identifiers are short and entered manually it's easy to make a typo or a misreading which gives you another valid firstbits address. A malicious party can intentionally and very cheaply register all the common typos around a popular firstbits address. Normal Bitcoin addresses contain a 32-bit checksum to make typos nearly impossible, but firstbit addresses can have no such protection. As usual for Bitcoin misdirected funds cannot be recovered. The need to use longer versions of short names such as "1baseballs" instead of "1baseball"— which may or may not be the same address depending on if another "1baseball" was used first— further increases the risk of error.

	=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===		=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===
Line 34:		Line 40:
	This means that it is impossible to support Firstbits in SPV nodes.		This means that it is impossible to support Firstbits in SPV nodes.
	Eventually, all Bitcoin clients will likely use SPV as an initialization state, which makes it additionally confusing for end users.		Eventually, all Bitcoin clients will likely use SPV as an initialization state, which makes it additionally confusing for end users.

			=== Encourages the use of centralized services ===
			Because of the cost and storage of creating and maintaining a separate index for firstbits queries an otherwise secure SPV user may feel pressured to use a centralized service to resolve firstbits prefixes given to him by other parties. There are multiple centralized firstbits resolution services already. If a resolution service is compromised and returns wrong results funds will be sent to the wrong destinations.

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* [[vanitygen]]		* [[vanitygen]]

Luke-jr: /* Criticism */ Reorder: list problems that affect people against their consent first, before problems only for firstbits users

2013-07-18T05:25:13Z

Criticism: Reorder: list problems that affect people against their consent first, before problems only for firstbits users

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:25, 18 July 2013
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Firstbits is considered by many, including most (if not all) Bitcoin developers to be a bad idea.		Firstbits is considered by many, including most (if not all) Bitcoin developers to be a bad idea.
	This is for a number of reasons:		This is for a number of reasons:

			=== Blockchain bloat ===
			Firstbits effectively encourages its users to bloat the blockchain with a dummy send to their address, in order to get the shortest possible firstbits before anyone else.
			This is especially true for vanity addresses, where they may be "squatted" like domain names in hopes of selling them to a trademark or obvious company/person they represent.
			Not only is it effectively encouraged by the design of Firstbits, but the creator himself is known to have squatted numerous identifiers in this way.
			This affects all Bitcoin users, even without their consent to Firstbits.

			=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===
			Bitcoin was designed such that addresses should only be used once, for a single transaction.
			Firstbits, by contrast, encourages people to find and use a single address for multiple transactions.
			This breaks numerous assumptions of the Bitcoin system (to be addressed on another page), in ways which harm even Bitcoin users who choose not to use Firstbits.

	=== Increases storage requirements of light nodes ===		=== Increases storage requirements of light nodes ===
	Firstbits requires nodes to keep an unpruned index of every address ever used, which means it will grow forever.		Firstbits requires nodes that support it to keep an unpruned index of every address ever used, which means it will grow forever.
	Note that all existing indexes required for fully-verifying Bitcoin nodes may be pruned.		Note that all existing indexes required for fully-verifying Bitcoin nodes may be pruned.
	Since Bitcoin is designed so that every transaction should have a unique address, this index will also grow for every transaction.		Since Bitcoin is designed so that every transaction should have a unique address, this index will also grow for every transaction.
Line 23:		Line 34:
	This means that it is impossible to support Firstbits in SPV nodes.		This means that it is impossible to support Firstbits in SPV nodes.
	Eventually, all Bitcoin clients will likely use SPV as an initialization state, which makes it additionally confusing for end users.		Eventually, all Bitcoin clients will likely use SPV as an initialization state, which makes it additionally confusing for end users.

	~~=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===~~
	~~Bitcoin was designed such that addresses should only be used once, for a single transaction.~~
	~~Firstbits, by contrast, encourages people to find and use a single address for multiple transactions.~~
	~~This breaks numerous assumptions of the Bitcoin system (to be addressed on another page).~~

	~~=== Transaction spam ===~~
	~~Firstbits effectively encourages its users to spam the blockchain with a dummy send to their address, in order to get the shortest possible firstbits before anyone else.~~
	~~This is especially true for vanity addresses, where they may be "squatted" like domain names in hopes of selling them to a trademark or obvious company/person they represent.~~
	~~Not only is it effectively encouraged by the design of Firstbits, but the creator himself is known to have squatted numerous identifiers in this way.~~

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* [[vanitygen]]		* [[vanitygen]]

Luke-jr: /* Criticism */ reword

2013-07-18T05:22:47Z

Criticism: reword

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 18 July 2013
Line 25:		Line 25:

	=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===		=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===
	Bitcoin was designed such that addresses ~~may~~ only be used once, for a single transaction.		Bitcoin was designed such that addresses should only be used once, for a single transaction.
	Firstbits, by contrast, encourages people to find and use a single address for multiple transactions.		Firstbits, by contrast, encourages people to find and use a single address for multiple transactions.
	This breaks numerous assumptions of the Bitcoin system (to be addressed on another page).		This breaks numerous assumptions of the Bitcoin system (to be addressed on another page).

Luke-jr: /* Criticism */

2013-07-18T05:17:21Z

Criticism

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 18 July 2013
Line 23:		Line 23:
	This means that it is impossible to support Firstbits in SPV nodes.		This means that it is impossible to support Firstbits in SPV nodes.
	Eventually, all Bitcoin clients will likely use SPV as an initialization state, which makes it additionally confusing for end users.		Eventually, all Bitcoin clients will likely use SPV as an initialization state, which makes it additionally confusing for end users.

			=== Contradicts design of Bitcoin ===
			Bitcoin was designed such that addresses may only be used once, for a single transaction.
			Firstbits, by contrast, encourages people to find and use a single address for multiple transactions.
			This breaks numerous assumptions of the Bitcoin system (to be addressed on another page).

	=== Transaction spam ===		=== Transaction spam ===

Luke-jr: /* Criticism */ Elaborate a bit more on the many problems with Firstbits

2013-07-18T05:15:39Z

Criticism: Elaborate a bit more on the many problems with Firstbits

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ==Criticism==
-Firstbits is generally considered to be a bad idea because it encourages transaction spam.
+Firstbits is considered by many, including most (if not all) Bitcoin developers to be a bad idea.
-This position is held by most, if not all, of Bitcoin developers.
+This is for a number of reasons:
 == See also ==
 * [[vanitygen]]

Luke-jr: Restore facts

2013-07-18T05:01:22Z

Restore facts

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:01, 18 July 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Criticism==		==Criticism==
	Firstbits is considered ~~by some~~ to be a bad idea because it ~~can encourage~~ transaction spam.		Firstbits is generally considered to be a bad idea because it encourages transaction spam.
			This position is held by most, if not all, of Bitcoin developers.

	== See also ==		== See also ==
	* [[vanitygen]]		* [[vanitygen]]