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

[ts via bitcoin-dev]

Hello Karl,

Yes, I agree in general. But while the visual checksum could be sometimes more interesting and 
even useful, I guess that the technically simpler solution might be more likely to be adopted. 
And also less prone to error. Just a thought.


Cheers,
TS


Karl wrote on 8/19/21 4:05 PM:
Something that could work really well here could be having a norm of using the checksum for 
bright colors, weights, sizes, capitalizations, and/or spacing of the characters of the 
address, making different addresses more clearly visually distinct.


Ethereum uses mixed case to do this a little bit: 
https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-55#implementation 



It seems to me the checksum at the end of the address is sufficient for differentiating error, 
but making a checksum more visually distinctive is indeed an opportunity to add another 
digest, reducing collisions and such.

___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

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

[ts via bitcoin-dev]

Good day Christopher,

Thanks for your comment! LifeHash looks indeed quite interesting. I can imagine some examples 
where it would be very useful, and I guess it could be used as a visual verification for the 
address in a wallet as well.


However, for my proposal (Human readable checksum (verification code) to avoid errors) it 
could have the following disadvantages:


1. It would be only one standard instead of one standard per crypto network (it should be 
different on each of them as described in the proposal). This could be solved with the 
inclusion of a network identifier somehow, but would increase the complexity of the 
implementation.


2. For this special use case, a simple 3 to 4 digit code is easier to implement than a 
graphic, and easier to include in an existing app, with minimal layout changes. The simpler it 
is, the more likely it will be for developers to actually implement it.


3. A graphic cannot be communicated by voice (in some situations this could be an easier way 
to communicate the verification code)


Greetings,
TS



Christopher Allen wrote on 8/19/21 12:37 PM:
As an alternative, you might want to consider LifeHash, which includes a visual indicator as 
well as a readable fingerprint value.


LifeHash is an open source visual hashing algorithm that we use for all our projects. Lifehash 
has a number of desirable qualities, including high complexity, good aesthetics, a 
printer-friendly (CMYK) color gamut and robustness when transformed to grayscale.


* [LifeHask Overview and links to reference 
code](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/lifehash 
)


* [LifeHash Explainer on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu0K__KLxKo 
)


* [Our LifeHash UX best practices - The Object Identity 
Block](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/papers/bcr-2021-002-digest.md#object-identity-block 
)


-- Christopher Allen
    Principal Architect, Blockchain Commons



___
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev