Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W2da7-0007rM-FX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:13:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender) client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co; helo=mail.taplink.co; Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1W2da6-0001rw-4X for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:13:15 +0000 Received: from laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([192.168.168.135]) by mail.taplink.co ; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:21:34 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin> <20140110102037.GB25749@savin> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 01:13:08 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jeremy Spilman" Organization: TapLink Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) oclient: 192.168.168.135#jeremy@taplink.co#465 X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1W2da6-0001rw-4X Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:13:15 -0000 On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Jeremy Spilman wrote: > > I think for displaying the payment in the UI after it's been made via > PP, we have to fully > > support sending to a new standard address type anyway. On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:26:18 -0800, Mike Hearn wrote: > Why? Showing an address is meaningless, especially if the user didn't > type it in or see > it somewhere else. It's just an opaque random number, all putting it in > the UI can do is > make it look scarier :) > > Part of the point of the payment protocol is it lets merchants provide > human readable text > for transactions instead of addresses. Of course you're right, moving away from addresses is definitely part of the point of PP. On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:18:33 -0800, Gavin Andresen wrote: > No, please. Make it easy for non-geeks, extend the payment protocol, or > we'll spend the next > two years writing code that tries to ignore linebreaks and spaces and > changing in HTML > forms to