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
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YbEcI-00056s-Gq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:43:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.182 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.182; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f182.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f182.google.com ([209.85.213.182])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YbEcH-00067O-JH
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:43:02 +0000
Received: by igbud6 with SMTP id ud6so3098300igb.1
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.41.148 with SMTP id p20mr40146704ice.62.1427402575818;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.6.133 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 13:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55146E2C.9020105@thinlink.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:42:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSSOQi4uL95S=GUdXGKZK_y4aNTUoOqkkaLFvzAVPnRig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.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: 1YbEcH-00067O-JH
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse
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: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:43:02 -0000
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
> I addressed that by limiting the duplicate check to an X-block segment. X
> is hard-coded in this simple scheme (X=144 => "1-day addresses"). You
> could picture a selectable expiration duration too.
If its to be heuristic in any case why not make it a client feature
instead of a consensus rule?
If someone wants to bypass anything they always can, thats what I mean
by "hide their payment under a rock"
E.g. I can take your pubkey, add G to it (adding 1 to the private
key), strip off the time limits, and send the funds.
"What do you mean I didn't pay you? I wrote a check. locked it in a
safe, and burred it in your back garden."
The answer to this can only be that payment is only tendered when its
made _exactly_ to the payee's specifications.
If someone violates the specifications all they're doing is destroying
coins. Nothing can stop people from destroying coins...
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.
|
