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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1Wk9y1-0001QS-PJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 May 2014 10:29:49 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.180 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f180.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wk9y0-0004e0-QN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 13 May 2014 10:29:49 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id va2so135822obc.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 13 May 2014 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.29.225 with SMTP id n1mr40860709obh.2.1399976983245;
Tue, 13 May 2014 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.71.162 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 03:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53714DCE.7020803@gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3VNXSc2cd3b9pz9iC2BR0-vG=tfYwMyUGBGaWPq+geXQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20140509150325.GA30436@savin>
<CANEZrP1m=-GWD5rLRe9vrx0JYKeKXghNw-a47ZbJTd1h3ngFww@mail.gmail.com>
<20140509152715.GA12421@savin>
<CANEZrP0Yom_JjN2PnPsfKV5S4wZSze4XTcJJU2ZWee4VGo20tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBh-OA7xSp3=SEGS1fP-d2CDMzMy_=S_jOs1hvdaWTw0mA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140509181353.GB27819@savin>
<CAPg+sBiSkeoD-Rxkoo+Dp8vTt0hE4FGLVxrdqTox6Njo8Mk5pw@mail.gmail.com>
<53714DCE.7020803@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:29:43 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 535UIlqeofSNMdKOO-8r2rzT-p0
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2PMvxhBEAS+eoqJ+eWu-+9i9chj4ZogpJW34o7ghJEsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2da9cc7bc7104f9458ad4
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1Wk9y0-0004e0-QN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] ECDH in the payment protocol
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, 13 May 2014 10:29:49 -0000
--001a11c2da9cc7bc7104f9458ad4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a thought. Using the payment protocol for stealth would mean we
> would likely have to return to backing up wallets all the time would it
> not?
>
I think you are right. Awkward.
Wallets could auto-respend transactions to a plain (private) HD derived key
to make them findable again. But that gets us back to using block space
inefficiently.
Over time I think wallet backups will get more valuable anyway, as they
will start containing more and more essential data that isn't in the block
chain: receipts, messages, exchange rate records for tax purposes etc. But
being able to get access to your money with just the 12 words (+a date for
SPV wallets) is a pretty desirable safety feature.
--001a11c2da9cc7bc7104f9458ad4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
ue, May 13, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Chris Pacia <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"=
mailto:ctpacia@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ctpacia@gmail.com</a>></span=
> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Just a thought. Using the payment protocol f=
or stealth would mean we<br>
would likely have to return to backing up wallets all the time would it not=
?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you are right. Awkward.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>Wallets could auto-respend transactions to a plain (pri=
vate) HD derived key to make them findable again. But that gets us back to =
using block space inefficiently.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Over time I think wallet backups will get more valuable=
anyway, as they will start containing more and more essential data that is=
n't in the block chain: receipts, messages, exchange rate records for t=
ax purposes etc. But being able to get access to your money with just the 1=
2 words (+a date for SPV wallets) is a pretty desirable safety feature.</di=
v>
</div></div></div>
--001a11c2da9cc7bc7104f9458ad4--
|
