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
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <drak@zikula.org>) id 1W44Bo-0004uV-Or
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:50:04 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of zikula.org
designates 74.125.82.46 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.46; envelope-from=drak@zikula.org;
helo=mail-wg0-f46.google.com;
Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W44Bn-00007o-2i
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:50:04 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x12so4077027wgg.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=i854SWuy+FltgRBiSCjHUwe1H/0EWP+giax1Zf8IlKE=;
b=TzpSPxJ6/WszQDLZ5iW/S6w+l8LQaKEqGJuHHuMJEn6gtqbsqWNGMoE1+9jxggTKz4
BIP2n15kcQIchqiXO4m7LYUpTn4igabEYDLeGR5guX0Z2dj3T+Z8dIxgjIRfzKcMoSB3
achd7Tsh0T7yajmOHfn2TGuPT8UTMSKy5aVOiHZ6BMVoPlvDtCfzuUfmKOxK9BpALEhU
mPUhHGpW7DlWkKTG5Y1ahlg3/bMvY41PLc4yjKA02Iyt8WRI6pzYNa3Hk3ylNSy3DB7t
OsKTwZ264PS4AyZhqJF3ps7Gobt9ozHZMJb+4jkRQ+VaQAaDR5OtSlgYKT4JocpmzKeR
WeJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl1pnkrm6tFBAMTTivdC0suVnx5v0qpcyZ/VXWPX2uecUPw33wCtNSiSEpR7YJ3GWAp0EwK
X-Received: by 10.180.160.166 with SMTP id xl6mr829470wib.43.1389944996806;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:49:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.30.8 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:49:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140116212805.GA4421@petertodd.org>
References: <CAAS2fgTz0TaGhym_35V3N2-vHVzU9BeuV8q+QJjwh5bg77FEZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0huBWqgvQik9Yc26Tu4CwR0VSXcfC+qfzsZqvoU4VJGA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANEZrP1KAVhi_-cxCYe0rR9LUSYJ8MyW8=6eSJZ65FeY5ZJNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANAnSg0tH_bK_19rsRRHOeZgrGYeWMhW89fXPyS4DQGmS4r_7A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALimQCXgc0eXeOcqFGUaCpSF7gKEe87KzvLqHZwUysV3WyjjGw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgShChAQryfUOBp60jB-zxn2tH986fu1HfT+LsNdBYnoYg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0P5r2+kxy7w8G=h=TAhdk1jUoW5UOiv-euo47uQY0u9ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<op.w9q6jdsayldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<20140116212805.GA4421@petertodd.org>
From: Drak <drak@zikula.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:49:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CANAnSg2TY7Zh7RnHkBeTz1s-WutGLayum8q5DhdLhtOBMDT9ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b66f9cbcad5c704f025c9a8
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
X-Headers-End: 1W44Bn-00007o-2i
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:50:04 -0000
--047d7b66f9cbcad5c704f025c9a8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Peter I agree with you about "reusable addresses", but aren't we also
trying to get away from the word "address" entirely? How about calling it
a "payment key" or "reusable payment key" instead? using "stealth" is just
asking for bad press imo.
On 16 January 2014 21:28, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:05:27PM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:
> > Might I propose "reusable address".
> >
> > I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more
> > so encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs
> > 'reusable'.
> >
> > It definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive
> > adoption. The feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.
>
> I'm very against the name "reusable addresses" and strongly belive we
> should stick with the name stealth addresses.
>
> You gotta look at it from the perspective of a user; lets take standard
> pay-to-pubkey-hash addresses: I can tell my wallet to pay one as many
> times as I want and everything works just great. I also can enter the
> address on blockchain.info's search box, and every transaction related
> to the address, and the balance of it, pops up immediately.
>
> What is that telling me? A: Addresses starting with "1" are reusable. B:
> Transactions associated with them appear to be public knowledge.
>
> Now I upgrade my wallet software and it says I now have a "reusable"
> address. My reaction is "Huh? Normal addresses are reusable, what's
> special about this weird reusable address thing that my buddy Bob's
> wallet software couldn't pay." I might even try to enter in a "reusable"
> address in blockchain.info, which won't work, and I'll just figure
> "must be some new unsupported thing" and move on with my life.
>
> On the other hand, suppose my wallet says I now have "stealth address"
> support. I'm going to think "Huh, stealth? I guess that means privacy
> right? I like privacy." If I try searching for a stealth address on
> blockchain.info, when it doesn't work I might think twig on "Oh right!
> It said stealth addresses are private, so maybe the transactions are
> hidden?" I might also think "Maybe this is like stealth/incognito mode
> in my browser? So like, there's no history being kept for others to
> see?" Regardless, I'm going to be thinking "well I hear scary stuff
> about Bitcoin privacy, and this stealth thing sounds like it's gonna
> help, so I should learn more about that"
>
> Finally keep in mind that stealth addresses have had a tonne of very
> fast, and very wide reaching PR. The name is in the public conciousness
> already, and trying to change it now just because of vague bad
> associations is going to throw away the momentum of that good PR and
> slow down adoption. Last night I was at the Toronto Bitcoin Meetup and I
> based on conversations there with people there, technical and
> non-technical, almost everyone had heard about them and almost everyone
> seemed to understand the basic idea of why they were a good thing. That
> just wouldn't have happened with a name that tried to hide what stealth
> addresses were for, and by changing the name now we risk people not
> making the connection when wallet software gets upgraded to support
> them.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000001b0e0ae7ef97681ad77188030b6c791aef304947e6f524740
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
--047d7b66f9cbcad5c704f025c9a8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Peter I agree with you about =C2=A0"reusable addresse=
s", but aren't we also trying to get away from the word "addr=
ess" entirely? =C2=A0How about calling it a "payment key" or=
"reusable payment key" instead? using "stealth" is jus=
t asking for bad press imo.<br>
<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 16 January=
2014 21:28, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:pete@petert=
odd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:05:27PM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:<br>
> Might I propose "reusable address".<br>
><br>
> I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more<br=
>
> so encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs<=
br>
> 'reusable'.<br>
><br>
> It definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive<br>
> adoption. The feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.<br>
<br>
</div>I'm very against the name "reusable addresses" and stro=
ngly belive we<br>
should stick with the name stealth addresses.<br>
<br>
You gotta look at it from the perspective of a user; lets take standard<br>
pay-to-pubkey-hash addresses: I can tell my wallet to pay one as many<br>
times as I want and everything works just great. I also can enter the<br>
address on <a href=3D"http://blockchain.info" target=3D"_blank">blockchain.=
info</a>'s search box, and every transaction related<br>
to the address, and the balance of it, pops up immediately.<br>
<br>
What is that telling me? A: Addresses starting with "1" are reusa=
ble. B:<br>
Transactions associated with them appear to be public knowledge.<br>
<br>
Now I upgrade my wallet software and it says I now have a "reusable&qu=
ot;<br>
address. My reaction is "Huh? Normal addresses are reusable, what'=
s<br>
special about this weird reusable address thing that my buddy Bob's<br>
wallet software couldn't pay." I might even try to enter in a &quo=
t;reusable"<br>
address in <a href=3D"http://blockchain.info" target=3D"_blank">blockchain.=
info</a>, which won't work, and I'll just figure<br>
"must be some new unsupported thing" and move on with my life.<br=
>
<br>
On the other hand, suppose my wallet says I now have "stealth address&=
quot;<br>
support. I'm going to think "Huh, stealth? I guess that means priv=
acy<br>
right? I like privacy." If I try searching for a stealth address on<br=
>
<a href=3D"http://blockchain.info" target=3D"_blank">blockchain.info</a>, w=
hen it doesn't work I might think twig on "Oh right!<br>
It said stealth addresses are private, so maybe the transactions are<br>
hidden?" I might also think "Maybe this is like stealth/incognito=
mode<br>
in my browser? So like, there's no history being kept for others to<br>
see?" Regardless, I'm going to be thinking "well I hear scary=
stuff<br>
about Bitcoin privacy, and this stealth thing sounds like it's gonna<br=
>
help, so I should learn more about that"<br>
<br>
Finally keep in mind that stealth addresses have had a tonne of very<br>
fast, and very wide reaching PR. The name is in the public conciousness<br>
already, and trying to change it now just because of vague bad<br>
associations is going to throw away the momentum of that good PR and<br>
slow down adoption. Last night I was at the Toronto Bitcoin Meetup and I<br=
>
based on conversations there with people there, technical and<br>
non-technical, almost everyone had heard about them and almost everyone<br>
seemed to understand the basic idea of why they were a good thing. That<br>
just wouldn't have happened with a name that tried to hide what stealth=
<br>
addresses were for, and by changing the name now we risk people not<br>
making the connection when wallet software gets upgraded to support<br>
them.<br>
<span><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
'peter'[:-1]@<a href=3D"http://petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pet=
ertodd.org</a><br>
0000000000000001b0e0ae7ef97681ad77188030b6c791aef304947e6f524740<br>
</font></span><br>---------------------------------------------------------=
---------------------<br>
CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.<br>
Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For<br>
Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.<b=
r>
Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.<br>
<a href=3D"http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D119420431&iu=
=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk" target=3D"_blank">http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gam=
pad/clk?id=3D119420431&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk</a><br>__________________=
_____________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" target=3D"_bla=
nk">Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--047d7b66f9cbcad5c704f025c9a8--
|
