Using 'integrated addresses' to combat exchange issues with missing messages

Technical Discussion
#1

Hi folks,

I’ve been wondering if something like this would be useful for NEM to help cut down on the number of support requests due to users forgetting to include a message with their transactions to exchanges.

Like Monero’s ‘integrated addresses’, we could have an optional field in Nano for our own integrated addresses, which combine and encode addresses and messages together.

Here’s an example of how it might work.

Exchanges would have to implement it, but given it’d help them avoid dealing with more tickets, they might be more motivated to add it.

Main drawbacks would be that having it be optional would limit its usefulness, and for it to be mandatory, it’d need to be supported by all wallets, which would be tough. At least it might be useful in principle! :slight_smile:

1 Like
#2

Hi,

I guess this is pretty good idea. In my opinion this should also be very simple for exchanges to introduce it. I guess that overall perception of NEM could be better, as this would help users to not make mistakes :wink:

1 Like
#3

hey there,

How would the people sending XEM use this? I am aware of the bundling features used here but NanoWallet for example would not accept to send to such addresses, that’s my concern.

Very interesting idea! :slight_smile:

#4

Hiya Greg,

My thinking is that it’d be useful for exchanges to have this set up so that instead of giving users the address plus a hash, they could instead just say, “send to this address” and hand out the integrated address instead.

Yep, Nano would need to have a validation check in the address field – say, it’ll check for a valid NEM address first, then on failing would check to see if it’s an integrated address (decode it, slice off the first 40 characters then check that for a valid NEM address). If it turns out to be an integrated address, then disable the message field and let the user know that the message is included as part of the address.

I know, it’s more work for you devs! :slight_smile: But it’d be invisible as far as the user is concerned, which I think would greatly improve the current user experience when sending XEM to exchanges.

#5

My thinking is that it’d be useful for exchanges to have this set up so that instead of giving users the address plus a hash, they could instead just say, “send to this address” and hand out the integrated address instead.

I got this part, yes. Very interesting and helpful!

Yep, Nano would need to have a validation check in the address field – say, it’ll check for a valid NEM address first, then on failing would check to see if it’s an integrated address (decode it, slice off the first 40 characters then check that for a valid NEM address). If it turns out to be an integrated address, then disable the message field and let the user know that the message is included as part of the address.

thats a 50-liner maximum. :+1:

I know, it’s more work for you devs! :slight_smile: But it’d be invisible as far as the user is concerned, which I think would greatly improve the current user experience when sending XEM to exchanges.

This would give an amazing tool for exchanges, I think it definitely deserves to be looked into. Unfortunately I am very busy on other projects within the NEM community… I would give it a try in my spare time :slight_smile: (PacNEM was spare time too :see_no_evil:slight_smile:

Are you a developer? Has this integrated address feature been tested on running exchanges with other cryptocurrencies? I totally get the point here - it would permit for exchange platforms to securely identify funds and give end-user much easier access- less headache for both and even for NEM support.

Cheers :v:

1 Like
#6

Well, hobbyist for the time being. :smile: I’ve got a bit of experience with React now, but haven’t used Angular at all. Might give it a fork and have a tinker if I can get up to speed with it.

I know Monero uses this, but I haven’t got any experience sending Monero to an exchange. Shall have a look.

#7

Well, implementing this in Nanowallet will be nice improvement, however I guess that NIS should also have API endpoints for

  1. generating “integrated address”, and/or
  2. validating “integrated address”, and/or
  3. announcing transaction to “integrated address”
#8

I don’t think you’d even need to do that. It could just be part of the sdk as a helper util, as it’s just a bit of javascript to package-up the address and message. So as long as you decode and split before querying a NIS, it shouldn’t matter as far as the API’s concerned.

#9

Well you are right, it’s only couple lines of code, but in my opinion as long as it won’t be part of official API it won’t be used by biggest players and actually this is something that we all want. But that’s just my opinion :wink: