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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YbKhs-0003qB-SB
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:13:12 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.181; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f181.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YbKhr-0004HJ-Tx
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:13:12 +0000
Received: by ignm3 with SMTP id m3so24805093ign.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.70.10 with SMTP id ye10mr14588845icb.66.1427425986658;
Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.6.133 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 20:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BAY403-EAS3839ED2940DD1447E1C0277C2090@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY403-EAS3839ED2940DD1447E1C0277C2090@phx.gbl>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:13:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSAY=2mMZzw0L5Z=nxnVP5+EE2GL0s6ZgyY5NRRfaTq8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook.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: 1YbKhr-0004HJ-Tx
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: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 03:13:12 -0000
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:51 AM, Thy Shizzle <thyshizzle@outlook.com> wrote:
> Yes I agree, also there is talks about a government body I know of warming
> to bitcoin by issuing addresses for use by a business and then all
> transactions can be tracked for that business entity. This is one proposal I
> saw put forward by a country specific bitcoin group to their government and
> so not allowing address reuse would neuter that :(
I hope you're mistaken, because that would be a serious attack on the
design of bitcoin, which obtains privacy and fungibility, both
essential properties of any money like good, almost exclusively
through avoiding reuse.
[What business would use a money where all their competition can see
their sales and identify their customers, where their customers can
track their margins and suppliers? What individuals would use a system
where their inlaws could criticize their spending? Where their
landlord knows they got a raise, or where thieves know their net
worth?]
Though no one here is currently suggesting blocking reuse as a network
rule, the reasonable and expected response to what you're suggesting
would be to do so.
If some community wishes to choose not to use Bitcoin, great, but they
don't get to simply choose to screw up its utility for all the other
users.
You should advise this "country specific bitcoin group" that they
shouldn't speak for the users of a system which they clearly do not
understand.
|
