Well,.. The according to the onion wiki, the length of the onion address is 80 bits.
The largest number the onion address can get is: 1208925819614629174706175 That's because FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF is the largest number (unsigned) in hex for 80 bits key length. If we assume we have a dictionary that has 50K words, the maximum number of words in the onion address will be 6 words. Wolframa link: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1208925819614629174706175++convert +to+base+50000 For a 100K words dictionary, it will be 5 words http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1208925819614629174706175++convert +to+base+100000 The average length of a word in English dictionary is 5.1 characters according to this http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average+english +word+length The larger number of words in a dictionary we use, the shorter the address we get. The end result will be something like this: xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx-xxxxx.onion On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 15:03 +0100, Andreas Krey wrote: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:36:45 +0000, Robert Ransom wrote: > ... > > Which languages do you want us to ship a dictionary for in every Tor > > client? (Please specify the exact dictionaries you want us to use as > > well.) > > Left as an exercise for later. > > > How large are these dictionaries (in bytes)? > > The last one I tried is 16655 words, 91445 bytes (null-terminated strings). > > ... > > Have you tried this using the actual dictionaries that you want us to > > use? Are the resulting addresses really memorable? > > goric-edema-Alces-rune-pan-coost > feign-crig-plane-tret-balli-chela > > => Slightly. > > (I admit that I did not look up what base the *.onion names are > in, so the number of bits and thus words may be off.) > > > How long are the > > resulting addresses? > > Longer, of course. > > > Can they be entered into a computer as > > efficiently as addresses in the current format? > > Depends on the meaning of 'efficient'. Being longer it's more obvious work > to type, but... > > > Can a human proofread > > addresses in this form for errors as efficiently as addresses in the > > current format? > > ...easier to proofread or spell over the phone. But then, the proofread > part may be eased by adding a few minus signs into the usual onion names > just as well. > > That said, the real problem is deployment of anything like this. > > Andreas > _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk