Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1X73hd-00042O-Dk
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:27:33 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1X73hb-0004Fb-Oy
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:27:33 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id nu7so5891430obb.14
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.125.195 with SMTP id ms3mr26161407oeb.40.1405434446339;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0P97vqzXdk0-P+XEeo1S0xjc-Dsm8K+GjYxGE_O1TmPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1dWHtEEF7QDdfJe+kb8G+66cHd3-6UpAwkbOF9+sWEcw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0P97vqzXdk0-P+XEeo1S0xjc-Dsm8K+GjYxGE_O1TmPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:27:26 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8DaO81j5s-wtvAwRh5ry7ldeYE4
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1vZ6ZEazViMa3BwBTbu0ihmDJk7ueHUSHJSe9GA9zMhg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33cf28ede66e04fe3c3438
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: 1X73hb-0004Fb-Oy
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration?
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, 15 Jul 2014 14:27:33 -0000

--047d7b33cf28ede66e04fe3c3438
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:

> BIP70 does not work well for unknown number of future payments of
> unknown, unpredictable value.


You can specify zero as an output value, in which case it's the same as "no
value specified". You can then just reuse the PaymentRequest until it
expires. So I think it provides the same functionality already.

Now sure, you'll get address reuse in this scenario, but that's no worse
than with an extended textual address.

--047d7b33cf28ede66e04fe3c3438
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, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Jeff Garzik <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:jgarzik@bitpay.com" target=3D"_blank">jgarzik@bitpay.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">BIP70 does not work well for unknown number =
of future payments of<br>
unknown, unpredictable value.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>You can speci=
fy zero as an output value, in which case it&#39;s the same as &quot;no val=
ue specified&quot;. You can then just reuse the PaymentRequest until it exp=
ires. So I think it provides the same functionality already.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Now sure, you&#39;ll get address reuse in this scenario=
, but that&#39;s no worse than with an extended textual address.=C2=A0</div=
></div></div></div>

--047d7b33cf28ede66e04fe3c3438--