Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.113 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.113; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149113.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:11:44 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
Message-ID: <20140120111144.GG3468@savin>
References: <CANEZrP1KAVhi_-cxCYe0rR9LUSYJ8MyW8=6eSJZ65FeY5ZJNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CANAnSg0tH_bK_19rsRRHOeZgrGYeWMhW89fXPyS4DQGmS4r_7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALimQCXgc0eXeOcqFGUaCpSF7gKEe87KzvLqHZwUysV3WyjjGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgShChAQryfUOBp60jB-zxn2tH986fu1HfT+LsNdBYnoYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0P5r2+kxy7w8G=h=TAhdk1jUoW5UOiv-euo47uQY0u9ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140115230901.GA25135@netbook.cypherspace.org>
	<op.w9q85wkhyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
	<CAAS2fgTRKgkO15VUvVgttP-iEBNF4=G+++Xo-XsaRBmOxyXXKA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140118174452.GG3180@nl.grid.coop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0qt3EE9wi45a2ZFX"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140118174452.GG3180@nl.grid.coop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? & spv-privacy
 (Re: Stealth Addresses)
Precedence: list


--0qt3EE9wi45a2ZFX
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:44:52AM -0600, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > Ignoring prefixes the cost for each reusable address is only a small
> > percentage of the full node cost (rational: each transaction has one
> > or more ECDSA signatures, and the derivation is no more expensive), so
> > I would only expect computation to be an issue for large centralized
> > services. (non-full nodes suffer more from just the bandwidth impact).
>=20
> I have not seen anyone address my high-level question to (somewhat) compl=
icated
> mechanisms to keep coin flows private.
>=20
> Who pays for it? From what I see it's going to double the amount of data=
=20
> needed per address, further centralizing 'full' nodes. I'm fine if the NSA

Actually the exact encoding is still undetermined - other encodings I
proposed in my original paper are the same size or even smaller than a
standard transaction.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000190a2900f1a25c507a999fa11116f7bd0126618c1ebc4f5fb

--0qt3EE9wi45a2ZFX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=8nv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0qt3EE9wi45a2ZFX--