It could be done. I'm not sure of the merits. I would guess that it could create confusion based on what seeds are currently used for.
In terms of addresses, I look at about 5 characters after the bc1, the last few, and identify patterns in between. Due to checksums, and the massive amount of randomness of an address, it's unlikely to find 3 or more matching segments in two different addresses you encounter.
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 1 Feb
Another thing I would do was run it through md5sum on both computers. On linux: echo "bc1qzyda53xqwkqruex3mzwvpja04x23r572mygpgfc90qckdw2cwwaqr2h70u" | md5sum
12b0f10292c89d8be2e154ead4b8c819 -
Even a single character wrong makes a completely different hash. Thus, if they have the same lead 6 or so digits, they are virtually certain to be the same.
reply
Same.
And good point about confusion. But because of the randomness, I think there could be a function that hashes and shows you like four words to confirm. It could also be a different word list.
It is just such a source of friction for new users and it seems both really technical and unnecessary. I mean, you KNOW that can't happen if we get to large institutional custodial transfers.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Krv 1 Feb
Seedsigner, and some other address tools use a 6 or 8 character hex fingerprint for the seeds. Maybe a fingerprint could be created for an address.
reply