From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:41:52 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.15.1-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201407151448.57223.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJHLa0Nj2f4mSKNggGH4sXZTLYNwdVGO7uMSzN7V_vVKU-6w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0Nj2f4mSKNggGH4sXZTLYNwdVGO7uMSzN7V_vVKU-6w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201407151541.53342.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration?
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:11:25 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > They can already do this. It's perfectly valid for wallets/services to
> > ignore (and not consider as payment) transactions using an address more
> > than once. There might be race attacks if this is implemented in an
> > immediate fashon (attacker transaction gets mined first to kill a
> > payment), but should be pretty safe after a few blocks.
> 
> Sure it's valid.  However, few users will appreciate "you ignored my
> deposit" as a feature.
> 
> Payment protocol just doesn't well the use cases of,
> * an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki#Serialization_format

> * deposit addresses and deposit situations

There's no reason deposits cannot use a unique payment request or address 
every time...