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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>) id 1RcHjH-0000l2-Au
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:28:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ww0-f41.google.com;
Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RcHjG-0001FC-Ae
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:28:43 +0000
Received: by wgbdt12 with SMTP id dt12so5725716wgb.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:28:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.80.197 with SMTP id t5mr6148204wix.48.1324218516189; Sun,
18 Dec 2011 06:28:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 06:28:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201112180903.34398.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201112170132.26201.luke@dashjr.org>
<4EECDD5F.8030402@parhelic.com>
<CAGQP0AE-OkJroyAN5jga_a-s8i_SSub9uSgTQBZDrQQfzC=bSg@mail.gmail.com>
<201112180903.34398.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:28:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGQP0AF92xh_SSGOryTfedfPhVdjR3B7hcp9SM9t7Gj=syxs-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <timon.elviejo@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-)
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
-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
0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RcHjG-0001FC-Ae
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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 14:28:43 -0000
I see it as a good start for POS payments. I don't know what flaw
you're referring to.
Back on topic, is actually putting the whole pub key in each output
what you're proposing?
2011/12/18, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:15:26 AM Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
>> I'm just saying is useful for the "green address" particular case.
>
> "Green addresses" are also a broken-by-design feature and should be
> discouraged.
>
--=20
Jorge Tim=F3n
|
