Non-ETH address verification via Alpha-Numeric Broadcast

Status Draft


Add Alpha-Numeric generator adjacent to compatible non-ETH Addresses in ENS owner record to validate non-ETH wallet address ownership via alpha-numeric broadcast, enabling alpha-numeric verification of DOGE or BTC address records.


ENS permits updating records with a plethora of Coin Address fields. However, they are not yet widely adopted, potentially due to an absence of utility for these fields. Offering simple validation via Alpha-Numeric generation & network broadcast may unlock new adoption for ENS use-cases beyond the Ethereum ecosystem. Let’s allow ENS records to serve as a master list of the verified wallets across all chains.


Start simple with BTC & DOGE because we have existing potential use-cases with CounterParty & DogeParty wallet validation via Alpha-Numeric broadcast (from FreeWallet & DogeWallet respective desktop wallets) with CounterCord build by twitter handle @GithubJake09


Can you break this down in non-technical terms or provide any documentation?

I don’t know what, “alpha-numeric generation & network broadcast” means in plain-speak.

Absolutely. I threw this crude image together for now. I’m imagining additional use-cases and I hope to post a less hideous looking Figma link to some UI flow soon (if I can pursued CryptoReporter.eth to generate a mock-up).

CounterParty & DogeParty assets can be verified on Discord this way. Check out CounterCord, built recently by GitHubJake09.

Inspired by this:

Intro to DogeParty (XDP) NFTs & xchain tools which presently rely heavily upon desktop wallet use.

CounterParty (XCP) wallets


Sorry, I’m not following why we need to implement a feature to confirm ownership of wallets to begin with.

What is the harm in pointing an ENS name to a wallet address that isn’t yours?

I don’t really use other chains, but am I understanding the proposal is something of the equivalent of setting an ENS name as the primary record on Ethereum but for the other chains?

1 Like

Maybe the more interesting question here is, “What utility & benefit do we gain by introducing non-ETH wallet verification?”

Explore that a bit and see if any cool use-cases come to your mind. I first envisioned CounterParty and/or DogeParty OTC trading scenarios in which verified DOGE & BTC addresses would be used to authenticate peers.


Sure, that’s a potential benefit of non-ETH address ENS record verification. Users could potentially even verify multiple BTC or DOGE addresses and set one as their primary.

There are a number of ways in which “:white_check_mark: verified non-ETH addresses”, could be treated differently than regular old “:x: unverified non-ETH addresses”.

Could you describe better what you mean by “broadcast code”? Maybe it’s because you’re using a vocabulary from counterparty but I don’t yet understand what you mean by “alphanumeric generation”

Yes, in general I support adding ways to prove ownership of addresses, just not sure this accomplishes it.



These are good resources to explore:

CounterCord for CounterParty

DogeKord for DogeParty

Here’s what it looks like to “Broadcast Message” from DogeWallet. It’s identical on FreeWallet for CounterParty.

Sorry, if I’m using confusing or ambiguous language here. Thank you!

1 Like

I’ve answered your post on twitter but I’m posting here too for other’s sake. What you’re talking about it signing a message. The option you want isn’t actually the “broadcast message” but the “sign message” that is second on the options.

So yes, if you own n0vax.eth, a way to prove you also own dogecoin address 123 is to sign a message with your address. We don’t have any standard way to do this, and I agree it could be useful to have one. I would suggest writing an EIP for that, but it needs to be a bit more technical. Look at other EIPs, specially the Sign in with Ethereum and Offchain Data resolver ones for examples. It could be as simple as “sign your address with your account” but it might be important to be more than that.