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-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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YaoGQ-0006Xe-Jd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:34:42 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.177 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.177; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f177.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com ([209.85.223.177])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YaoGP-0005TV-MF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:34:42 +0000
Received: by iecvj10 with SMTP id vj10so26507637iec.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.89.200 with SMTP id h8mr18751606icm.48.1427301276310;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.6.133 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com>
References: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:34:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgRzskGcHjEhJLnyu-VMTR49i-Wo9TbOOqkHqEasxuO71A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[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
X-Headers-End: 1YaoGP-0005TV-MF
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:34:42 -0000
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
> The idea of limited-lifetime addresses was discussed on 2014-07-15 in
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.bitcoin.devel/5837
>
> It appears that a limited-lifetime address, such as the fanciful
>
> address = 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366
Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply
include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after
that time.
If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your
target and send anyways.
This would seem to work nearly as well as the non-reorg safe network
impacting version, and yet has no cost beyond the extra size is
communicating the limit.
> Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address
Requires a unprunable verification state.
|
