Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1UKEfW-00077G-Hx
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:11:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.50 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.50; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f50.google.com; 
Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com ([209.85.215.50])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UKEfU-00070Z-Nq
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:11:02 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ec20so12308884lab.37
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.199.2 with SMTP id jg2mr3350173lbc.13.1364245853938;
	Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.96.164 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130325204911.GD65880@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <20130222230851.GO2030@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<20130225172353.GA7782@malakian.dd-wrt>
	<20130325204911.GD65880@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:10:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQSMvCwmeoFSJUyrcikj0wV_r_hLRDrE_v5sA4xt48PDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
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: 1UKEfU-00070Z-Nq
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net, Andrew Poelstra <asp11@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Key retirement and key compromise
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:11:02 -0000

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
> I'm not envisaging something as drastic as changing the rules to make
> transactions to revoked addresses invalid - just an overlay protocol.
> Although to be useful such a protocol would have to be pretty much
> universally implemented by clients.

That is quite drastic enough, as it requires adding more perpetual
data that must remain in fast lookup for all validating nodes (the set
of revoked 'addresses').

Keep in mind that this is only improvement for what is a usually
inadvisable usage of Bitcoin to begin with... you should not be
reusing addresses.