Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDCD1BB for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:22:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f171.google.com (mail-ua0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964AE1AE for ; Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:22:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f171.google.com with SMTP id y5so646862uai.2 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:22:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ucwLC0f3rzQXvCj5LDixQIR+f7B8JngSZW9Ui+ETVQo=; b=PKvK0EZFnDtpGaTO8BqQSDa9P1EsQzf6tXSIQext94kOJv/EYTUQ7LjeUpeqU8HLuS MW8p1jN2D2jCL0plLzt9zP/6QLwxRF8rqXkvMzJzF+p0mqXwLjQwXRn45rmLfG6INKC3 5nl1GEvsE82TnJ/BhAqTGIKYGXE6wm7C7t5n040H7DrP11lZGMiXoqYoB+sXXCw09sy9 FIGpGFrgbBRQOP0OWeJWJsUvfsM+E+I/o2dMZ0c5WCgo1bTst9SLV+Hg7sSiuYjlSFhQ v7yeAi0GlK9oL3TAeZ8nTL8J+O2pfMyJg5XT5l/V78znfiYNUlOckDzrkqfy606ysjx4 8wdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ucwLC0f3rzQXvCj5LDixQIR+f7B8JngSZW9Ui+ETVQo=; b=cil1WdafHk6fC48mG/O3vFESFqMEwSKlVn04L16Y8sLRfcc0SkD7g4VluFRchUz6Bm i887qfxr6PCivQEkSOvFEHh9TDlC2UzyYnZ2Yik6Ao2CutQ2YFD09MyF66QRGxyWOmFd wL3kDPToe6RG3AfUWSN1ZPQR2kNtBRs6uZbkM9KuspUbpadTJoW4qtPXlt5j+U33g0pv 831rXnBEa4ZxGVnn/Eryl0cF/EDCnOnIF30V06RrBXIBNxV24HEnokXxAXlmVf6sl7xQ 2wLOYnDnK5qHtwSiZCiH6cNbTaEdKasvUg8YFfWzojURebotuAAf5U367NumUwr10CFo uAlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhqZDOlnERHC7Tmv1WfKC5y0qE34Ah0Ze/sRR+ST/lx188ateMV w4ilu9vV5bX9uANepuSS7DJRLE56oFEiwdVRapYMZw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCfTq9t2KcuHyxipVSSEkyCyUWXuBXcRC1wMJA6lDAPLJYDQJ0kruxwFYMB8B2Gj3OR17sek+/F9MMFXaIJxew= X-Received: by 10.176.94.89 with SMTP id a25mr2288090uah.109.1506558133768; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:22:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.146.78 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:22:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170927160654.GA12492@savin.petertodd.org> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:22:13 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jFSDFJY0QW2Xzzf6xPHZLWzGtqI Message-ID: To: Chris Priest , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 00:22:15 -0000 On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev wrote: > A better solution is to just have the sending wallet check to see if the > address you are about to send to has been used before. So every wallet needs all the addresses ever used and a fast index into them? This seems pretty harmful for scalability. > they first consult the address expiration service, So you propose a best practice that requires contacting a service and telling them what addresses you're planning on paying? This seems pretty harmful for privacy.