1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1W3XEf-00050Q-1s
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:38:49 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W3XEe-0007IK-An
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:38:49 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c6so1873152lan.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.73.180 with SMTP id m20mr10294lbv.68.1389818321510; Wed,
15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.198.65 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CALimQCXgc0eXeOcqFGUaCpSF7gKEe87KzvLqHZwUysV3WyjjGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin>
<op.w9c5o7vgyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<20140110102037.GB25749@savin>
<op.w9kkxcityldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<CABsx9T2G=yqSUGr0+Ju5-z9P++uS20AwLC+c3DnFMHtcQjQK6w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTz0TaGhym_35V3N2-vHVzU9BeuV8q+QJjwh5bg77FEZg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0huBWqgvQik9Yc26Tu4CwR0VSXcfC+qfzsZqvoU4VJGA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANEZrP1KAVhi_-cxCYe0rR9LUSYJ8MyW8=6eSJZ65FeY5ZJNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANAnSg0tH_bK_19rsRRHOeZgrGYeWMhW89fXPyS4DQGmS4r_7A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALimQCXgc0eXeOcqFGUaCpSF7gKEe87KzvLqHZwUysV3WyjjGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgShChAQryfUOBp60jB-zxn2tH986fu1HfT+LsNdBYnoYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Ben Davenport <bendavenport@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
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: 1W3XEe-0007IK-An
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses
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: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:38:49 -0000
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport <bendavenport@gmail.com> wrote:
> But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address" to
> something more neutral?
ACK. Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealth is a
little cringe-worthy.
"Private address" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys.
"Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve
awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness)
|
