5 ms·

Right, but the confirmation prompt could say something like, "You're sending $100k to L33tHaX0R, are you sure?" But that would require the protocol to also ha

Right, but the confirmation prompt could say something like, "You're sending $100k to L33tHaX0R, are you sure?" But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses. You could imagine a wallet that uses certificates for address validation. So a certificate owner could sign that they own a given public key. ( And sign with the public key to show they own that key too. ) Then that could go into a "verified recipients" section of the wallet, and you could set your wallet to only allow sending to verified recipients. ( Or only allow transactions over X to verified ).

jagged-chisel 1y ago
I don’t see how this prevents malware from changing the destination just before the transaction heads out. If it can change addresses, then it can change them at any point in the process, even after human verification.
- xnorswap 1y ago
  It doesn't stop specialized malware, but it stops clipjacking. Security isn't an absolute. You're not trying to stop all vectors, you're just trying to put up a barrier to trip up by far the most common and easy method. In a world where everyone leaves their doors open all day, you're asking "Why shut and lock your door when an attacker could just smash your windows?"
  - tough 1y ago
    on crypto you have also posioning address attacks (so using your clipboard to paste an addy is already a bad idea)
latexr 1y ago
> But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses. Which it doesn’t, and changing it to do so is not a realistic option. If we’re dreaming up anything, then my suggestion would instead be for no one to be dishonest, or for everyone’s basic needs to be met so they don’t need money and to speculate on cryptocurrencies. I’m pretty confident either of those would happen before every way people routinely get swindled off their cryptocurrencies is solved.
gruez 1y ago
>But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses. Most crypto exchanges and merchants generate unique addresses per user/transaction, so this won't work. Moreover having a fixed address is bad for privacy because it makes it obvious what the recipient of a given transaction is.

jagged-chisel 1y ago

I don’t see how this prevents malware from changing the destination just before the transaction heads out. If it can change addresses, then it can change them at any point in the process, even after human verification.

xnorswap 1y ago
It doesn't stop specialized malware, but it stops clipjacking. Security isn't an absolute. You're not trying to stop all vectors, you're just trying to put up a barrier to trip up by far the most common and easy method. In a world where everyone leaves their doors open all day, you're asking "Why shut and lock your door when an attacker could just smash your windows?"
- tough 1y ago
  on crypto you have also posioning address attacks (so using your clipboard to paste an addy is already a bad idea)

latexr 1y ago

> But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses. Which it doesn’t, and changing it to do so is not a realistic option. If we’re dreaming up anything, then my suggestion would instead be for no one to be dishonest, or for everyone’s basic needs to be met so they don’t need money and to speculate on cryptocurrencies. I’m pretty confident either of those would happen before every way people routinely get swindled off their cryptocurrencies is solved.

gruez 1y ago

>But that would require the protocol to also have the ability to set friendly names against public addresses. Most crypto exchanges and merchants generate unique addresses per user/transaction, so this won't work. Moreover having a fixed address is bad for privacy because it makes it obvious what the recipient of a given transaction is.