Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.212.174 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.174; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f174.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1dWHtEEF7QDdfJe+kb8G+66cHd3-6UpAwkbOF9+sWEcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP1dWHtEEF7QDdfJe+kb8G+66cHd3-6UpAwkbOF9+sWEcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:02:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0P97vqzXdk0-P+XEeo1S0xjc-Dsm8K+GjYxGE_O1TmPcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration?
Precedence: list

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


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> The request:   It would be useful to limit the lifetime of a bitcoin
>> address.
>
>
> Not only useful but essential! Otherwise mobile clients can run out of RAM
> and have to cycle around and reuse addresses.
>
> Which is indeed why BIP70 has this feature. It was thought about quite some
> time ago. Addresses are an evolutionary dead end, they will never do
> everything we need them to do. If there's somewhere that's using addresses,
> that's somewhere we will eventually need to upgrade to use BIP70 instead.
>
>


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/