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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1RcFeQ-000697-2V
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:15:34 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RcFeP-00064J-8U
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:15:34 +0000
Received: by wibhq7 with SMTP id hq7so923911wib.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:15:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.19.137 with SMTP id f9mr11700013wie.62.1324210527233; Sun,
18 Dec 2011 04:15:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 04:15:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4EECDD5F.8030402@parhelic.com>
References: <201112170132.26201.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAGQP0AFg7dMK4Rzm9M1Ur-jeQmAp85nKbE_Ry5sXr+Pw=e3EQg@mail.gmail.com>
<1324138546.29801.3.camel@BMThinkPad.lan.bluematt.me>
<4EECDD5F.8030402@parhelic.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:15:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AE-OkJroyAN5jga_a-s8i_SSub9uSgTQBZDrQQfzC=bSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1RcFeP-00064J-8U
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Pubkey addresses
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: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:15:34 -0000
2011/12/17, Jordan Mack <jordanmack@parhelic.com>:
> While I think firstbits is an interesting idea, I agree with Matt on
> this one. Firstbits, while being a clever idea, produces a less
> desirable solution in comparison to the current alias proposals.
I'm just saying is useful for the "green address" particular case.
People don't have to write or memorize the firstbit address, it's just
to have a shorter string to put it in the QR code. In this particular
case you don't really care about "squatting" or typographic errors
because the users are bot going to write or even see the firstbit
address. I think aliases are a better solution for the "memorizing use
case".
But anyway, reading some comments I feel I'm missing something about
this proposal. How can you save space by putting the whole public key
instead of just the address (a hash of the public key) with each
output?
Is this what it's being proposed?
|
