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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1X74rj-00085g-Oh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:03 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1X74ri-00037n-H8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:03 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CA2810803A5;
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:42 +0000 (UTC)
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>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201407151541.53342.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1X74ri-00037n-H8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:03 -0000
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...
|
