Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.48; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CAFDyEXgiZH-_zSftbKQRrPu385OwKEnYZo6-6NtWONX+V85awA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKrJrGOBSiY5V59eko6g796j3wh9V9ZLjPbyHeS5=zyX6j3Wdw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0Euc1mPhRc9e41tU4zMDrWesvVyiBpAPq6M3m7K=aU=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFDyEXgKpbE4WGAqROJ4J1UST=tXWgfn7uKhRO_tngJfVK_Czw@mail.gmail.com>
	<loom.20140616T172412-752@post.gmane.org>
	<CAFDyEXgiZH-_zSftbKQRrPu385OwKEnYZo6-6NtWONX+V85awA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:07:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0S3z5B0vRSQGMQwbnM2mgrFrRjfkCFvD=_No+xhb7QXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Daniel Rice <drice@greenmangosystems.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b678120d42a2c04fbf6397e
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Lawrence Nahum <lawrence@greenaddress.it>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] instant confirmation via payment protocol
 backwards compatible proto buffer extension
Precedence: list

--047d7b678120d42a2c04fbf6397e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Come to think of it, is the payment protocol really the place to put this
> instant provider signature
>

Yes it's the right place. The original attempt at this concept was in fact
called *green addresses* and the idea was you could identify a spend from a
trusted wallet by checking which keys were being used to sign. But the
problem is, lack of privacy. Everyone can see what wallet provider you use.

Also it'd be inefficient to have in the chain. There's no reason for the
extra signatures to be there: double spend risk is something only the
recipient cares about.

--047d7b678120d42a2c04fbf6397e
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"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><span style=3D"font-family=
:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Come to think of it, is the payment proto=
col really the place to put this instant provider signature</span></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes it&#39;s the right place. The or=
iginal attempt at this concept was in fact called <i>green addresses</i>=C2=
=A0and the idea was you could identify a spend from a trusted wallet by che=
cking which keys were being used to sign. But the problem is, lack of priva=
cy. Everyone can see what wallet provider you use.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also it&#39;d be inefficient to have in the chain. Ther=
e&#39;s no reason for the extra signatures to be there: double spend risk i=
s something only the recipient cares about.=C2=A0</div></div></div></div>

--047d7b678120d42a2c04fbf6397e--