Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.101 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.101; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148101.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:33:15 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Message-ID: <20150326213315.GA9362@muck>
References: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com>
	<CAAS2fgRzskGcHjEhJLnyu-VMTR49i-Wo9TbOOqkHqEasxuO71A@mail.gmail.com>
	<551301F0.9020806@thinlink.com>
	<CAAS2fgQMW+Htqu0wonL7r-ZN_t0evRayDCGRMKYzRUaCm6wxjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55146E2C.9020105@thinlink.com>
	<CAAS2fgSSOQi4uL95S=GUdXGKZK_y4aNTUoOqkkaLFvzAVPnRig@mail.gmail.com>
	<551479A3.9010104@thinlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <551479A3.9010104@thinlink.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse
Precedence: list


--7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:26:59PM -0700, Tom Harding wrote:
> On 3/26/2015 1:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > Which is why a simpler, safer, client enforced behavior is probably
> > preferable. Someone who wants to go hack their client to make a
> > payment that isn't according to the payee will have to live with the
> > results, esp. as we can't prevent that in a strong sense.
>=20
> I should have been clearer that the motivation for address expiration is=
=20
> to reduce the rate of increase of the massive pile of bitcoin addresses=
=20
> out there which have to be monitored forever for future payments.  It=20
> could make a significant dent if something like this worked, and were=20
> used by default someday.

Again, along the lines of what Gregory Maxwell is saying, if the payment
instructions you have given to the sender say "don't make funds
spendable with scriptPubKey after this date" why are you scanning those
"old" bitcoin addresses for future payments? That makes no more sense
than taking your p2pkh addresses and scanning for the same scriptPubKey
embedded within a p2sh address - you haven't told anyone to pay you via
that method so why expect anyone to do so?

> Address expiration is not an enhancement to the payment experience and=20
> it doesn't stop sender from doing something weird.  Hacking a new=20
> address for the recipient would be just as weird as hacking their client=
=20
> IMHO.

The sender is free to bury their Bitcoins in a safe in your neighbors
front yard; you have no reason to accept such silly behavior as payment
and every reason to ignore it.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000b48023e9c98038c50b9a2044975bbdf9f43313400a156b6

--7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGrBAEBCACVBQJVFHsYXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwNzdiMzRkNzM1NjY3OGM5MzM5NWNkYzhiZTUwZGI2NjE1
YWMwZjQ5OWUzYzZiMGQvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udwxcgf7BJTE0caV/nmI2ArR9gf2m3KO
9Ts/X3iXX+PaJiQm/FaqxsLd8gl+2FhNvN/AYOC/kqrYl0GLCnWDHHdzofyjhb7u
1TwA0kNzGQWItAgqzX/aK7r7PNSUfDDN6PReB4MElP/XmVYQrHBD1pMnYeiwDfOz
W0ravffV2NDdXtgclJsPy+qHWIbXsLzv4Ss3H5O8JRiYzRMKmFz9uw2USikOL9on
38bwvSppBsjKAT7nrrnP8iBc/VJ+2qPSAUUDzSvtaMJZoLEqB6Rf55RAGycXtDus
gfidXeKejfUTckyqIn3qDMENKSiBGJfSPOuoiRLS1vb+cu1jxAkGZIXZpPC2qw==
=MXIX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--7JfCtLOvnd9MIVvH--