Message-ID: <551301F0.9020806@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:44:00 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
References: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com>
	<CAAS2fgRzskGcHjEhJLnyu-VMTR49i-Wo9TbOOqkHqEasxuO71A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRzskGcHjEhJLnyu-VMTR49i-Wo9TbOOqkHqEasxuO71A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse
Precedence: list

On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> address =3D 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366
> Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply
> include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after
> that time.

Is this assuming payment protocol?  A major benefit of address
expiration, if it works, would be that it works without requiring
payment protocol.=20

> If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your
> target and send anyways.

Are you suggesting there is no implementation of address expiration that
wouldn't allow the string to be trivially changed by the sender?


>> Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address
> Requires a unprunable verification state.

I don't understand, explanation would be appreciated.