[notzorbo3]

A few years ago, a substantial amount of money was accidentally wired to my bank account. After about a month, I got a letter from the bank if I agreed on that money being wired back to the sender. I agreed, because I knew the implications.

With a technology like bitcoin, where receivers are pseudononymous, that would have never been possible.

Noone except for those who wish to remain pseudononymous will ever use bitcoin for any real-world scenarios. The costs are higher, the risks are higher, it doesn't scale, there are no checks and balances.

I don't want bitcoin for the same reason I don't want an AI to run national defenses.

[tyingq]

I wonder if there's such a thing as Bitcoin address typosquatting. Especially targeting single bit typos (of busy wallets) to catch single bit errors. I guess, though, vanity wallet addresses are hard to create. Or maybe there's also a checksum that keeps this from working anyway.

[bradleyjg]

There's a checksum, so your desired typosquatting address may not even be a valid address to begin with (the chance that it is valid is only 1 in 2^32). Even if it is a valid address it would be very very difficult to generate it. The difficulty of doing so would be at least as difficult as preimage attacks on both SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160.

[tyingq]

Interesting thanks. Is it remotely plausible on any other cryptocoin?