Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WLblV-0004Jz-Sa for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:25 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.128.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-ve0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com ([209.85.128.171]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WLblU-0004OF-4K for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:25 +0000 Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id cz12so2983580veb.30 for ; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:07:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.141.105 with SMTP id rn9mr824234vdb.44.1394125638601; Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:07:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.24.38 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:07:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:07:18 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BQ5erZlXzLPNgLNIR0nd4iqpx0U Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Brooks Boyd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0 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: 1WLblU-0004OF-4K Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Instant / contactless payments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:26 -0000 --bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > if some sort of Stealth address or HD wallet root was the identity gaining > the reputation, then address re-use wouldn't have to be mandatory. > The identity would be the X.520 name in the signing cert that signed the payment request. It doesn't have to be a difficult to obtain cert. It could even be self signed for this use case, but then you lose the security benefits and a key rotation would delete your reputation, so in practice I think most people would want the reputation to accrue to the name itself. --bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

if some sort of Stealth address o= r HD wallet root was the identity gaining the reputation, then address re-u= se wouldn't have to be mandatory.

The identity would be the X.520 name in the signing cert = that signed the payment request. It doesn't have to be a difficult to o= btain cert. It could even be self signed for this use case, but then you lo= se the security benefits and a key rotation would delete your reputation, s= o in practice I think most people would want the reputation to accrue to th= e name itself.
--bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0--