1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
|
Return-Path: <lloyd.fourn@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62491EA1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:14:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io1-f52.google.com (mail-io1-f52.google.com
[209.85.166.52])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBEFF5D3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:14:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io1-f52.google.com with SMTP id c6so17886580ioo.13
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=yLBzpgkFx1oZOdrbK3AGmplVHmSySmknWv4kAh6FIgM=;
b=fJCexU9ckxtEibsiUMSOxWMkNZ7sPcbtST1ybBE9rPwaqdNVZCRMynttxBHppf2+pt
PNNVS1xWTEPuN1AaTXXuYUqqW004pClfNtbWlfm5SQisbNJh4k30BiFDSaxD6pyH3jZv
4N3DLUA4UIVAaGE+89sgE89ZesU//WyOgVBw8bqHitYs8IT1t1H3pzjCZ7KZdV+6AIkc
RhU2wFpKKSR8GLyc6JjP3xrb7QJMjZgd/aomF9siLUwYBZr67u0sBG6rg/8HAdb0BtGB
f6VoO7ThvWujop4m0rTK3hsGwadoxVTwleswPlnh1JKooxX0tysjBJUAYEoVK1Ph1Xv1
i82w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=yLBzpgkFx1oZOdrbK3AGmplVHmSySmknWv4kAh6FIgM=;
b=bdASxf8HiS5dhCukDowTr10gl9xmaMzV74LF4moRC210JFbqotANcpSo2IhaCO9Ynh
YeQKwAgxJcBHnB4eCw8mQ7sLz1puKjlkGFxwEsazfz9BC2y/OHp7Lblm3oY7tJFtviF4
uyq0DNlH+0aBOgWM4d+fLEsFg45jSFGe0hSAoDcxI9rFOBGvBvknkAjiqWV+0E+gin5E
isXtX7TP76hjyhsH57HpbcfbPrdP4rStcszXtK9cDujedgBFcJEWfBAL1gWlMxiNAaOn
SvgA1fXZ0kXzr0fLUPRDdQrtyT0OuHu7U5c+l4ZkO4S7sIKZBqmlSd6a/iun+nV1izkT
xGqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRvPwwpwynWfUi36BfK7CroTr+wSc3HQsRnMjAyXnPWYsJb8lU
2FNZ9ag/iFItkRJ6ggsjpRaBCVkYOOf3NsbJPgmihZ+aFg4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzV3cEq0ti3jJbcLG71sAU10X/W/+tsWgg8V/LhOj8YKPXO7eShDixW6+u1HXk5N8e9Fe9pVoaCU2eK+prtgJE=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:6a05:: with SMTP id l5mr15059516jac.64.1570756446777;
Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <58e44347-6eee-a0c3-3b8a-965c7450780e@emilengler.com>
<6fe67006-7131-a861-61fa-65392d5be069@riseup.net>
<20824fa5-e3fa-8d4e-1678-4c2048b49b6b@emilengler.com>
In-Reply-To: <20824fa5-e3fa-8d4e-1678-4c2048b49b6b@emilengler.com>
From: Lloyd Fournier <lloyd.fourn@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:13:40 +1100
Message-ID: <CAH5Bsr2mtec+QT3wmnoSkRPwuHu2_4qn4zysqChkpFdaeqP1Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000009fb740594983c90"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 03:21:13 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIPable-idea: Consistent and better definition of
the term 'address'
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:14:08 -0000
--00000000000009fb740594983c90
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi Thread,
This may not be the most practical information, but there actually did
exist an almost perfect analogy for Bitcoin addresses from the ancient
world: From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulla_(seal)
"Transactions for trading needed to be accounted for efficiently, so the
clay tokens were placed in a clay ball (bulla), which helped with
dishonesty and kept all the tokens together. In order to account for the
tokens, the bulla would have to be crushed to reveal their content. This
introduced the idea of impressing the token onto the wet bulla before it
dried, to insure trust that the tokens hadn't been tampered with and for
anyone to know what exactly was in the bulla without having to break it."
You could only use the bulla once because it had to be destroyed in order
to get the tokens out! I think there are even examples of bulla with a kind
of "signature" on them (an imprint with the seal of a noble family etc).
"send me a Bitcoin bulla" has a nice ring to it!
Sincerely,
LL
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:44 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> * Sorry if this mail was sent multiple times, my E-Mail client went crazy *
>
> Thanks for all your feedback.
> I came to the decision to write a BIP for this, even if it might not be
> implemented by many wallets, a standardization is never wrong and this
> would be the first step in the correct direction for better on-chain
> privacy.
>
> However currently we still need a good term for the 'address' replacement.
>
> The current suggestions are:
> * Invoice ID
> * Payment Token
> * Bitcoin invoice (address)
> * Bitcoin invoice (path)
>
> Because of the LN term invoice I really like the term 'Bitcoin Invoice'
> by Chris Belcher.
>
> So how do find a consensus about these terms?
>
> Greetings
> Emil Engler
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--00000000000009fb740594983c90
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Thread,<div><br></div><div>This may not be the most pra=
ctical information, but there actually did exist an almost perfect analogy =
for Bitcoin addresses from the ancient world: From wikipedia=C2=A0<a href=
=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulla_(seal)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wi=
ki/Bulla_(seal)</a></div><div><br></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:san=
s-serif;font-size:14px">"Transactions for trading needed to be account=
ed for efficiently, so the clay tokens were placed in a clay ball (bulla), =
which helped with dishonesty and kept all the tokens together. In order to =
account for the tokens, the bulla would have to be crushed to reveal their =
content. This introduced the idea of impressing the token onto the wet bull=
a before it dried, to insure trust that the tokens hadn't been tampered=
with and for anyone to know what exactly was in the bulla without having t=
o break it."</span></div><div><br></div><div>You could only use the bu=
lla once because it had to be destroyed in order to get the tokens out! I t=
hink there are even examples of bulla with a kind of "signature" =
on them (an imprint with the seal of a noble family etc).</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>"send me a Bitcoin bulla" has a nice ring to it!</div><di=
v><br></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br></div><div>LL</div><div><br></div=
><div><br></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">=
<br></span></div><div><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"=
><br></span></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" cla=
ss=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:44 AM Emil Engler via bitcoin-d=
ev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev=
@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,2=
04,204);padding-left:1ex">* Sorry if this mail was sent multiple times, my =
E-Mail client went crazy *<br>
<br>
Thanks for all your feedback.<br>
I came to the decision to write a BIP for this, even if it might not be<br>
implemented by many wallets, a standardization is never wrong and this<br>
would be the first step in the correct direction for better on-chain<br>
privacy.<br>
<br>
However currently we still need a good term for the 'address' repla=
cement.<br>
<br>
The current suggestions are:<br>
* Invoice ID<br>
* Payment Token<br>
* Bitcoin invoice (address)<br>
* Bitcoin invoice (path)<br>
<br>
Because of the LN term invoice I really like the term 'Bitcoin Invoice&=
#39;<br>
by Chris Belcher.<br>
<br>
So how do find a consensus about these terms?<br>
<br>
Greetings<br>
Emil Engler<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
--00000000000009fb740594983c90--
|
