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
92
93
94
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <jeremy@taplink.co>) id 1W2paB-0005Vb-MQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:02:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co
designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender)
client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co;
helo=mail.taplink.co;
Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1W2paA-0006MV-Vo for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:02:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.134] ([76.21.80.109]) by mail.taplink.co ;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:10:26 -0800
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>
<20140113194049.GJ38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANAnSg30V01B_3LCJ09sTwcsYa4_WOg3sKd-=p6COZS6w0b-uA@mail.gmail.com>
<52D4458C.6010909@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTzVWUF_B_-1jkRs3WZ8Um_CcHeH7uFU0eLncgEqQ01HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTzVWUF_B_-1jkRs3WZ8Um_CcHeH7uFU0eLncgEqQ01HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <19AE1549-16E0-4119-8BE9-8F4DFD3381C1@taplink.co>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146)
From: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:02:00 -0800
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
oclient: 76.21.80.109#jeremy@taplink.co#465
X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-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: 1W2paA-0006MV-Vo
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <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: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:02:07 -0000
> Uh while I'm responding again, what I'd discussed with Peter Todd in
> IRC used two EC points in the stealth address. One for the payment and
> one for the ECDH. The reason to use two is that it makes delegating
> detection possible and so you don't have to have you spending keys
> online to even detect these payments. Why'd that get dropped?
I think this is exactly what I've implemented.
I decided to put both pubKeys in a 2-of-2 multisig, instead of keeping one o=
f the pubKeys in the OP-RETURN, to prevent a malicious sender from triggerin=
g false positives on your online detection key when the funds are actually s=
till fully controlled by the payer.
You can still have a false positive (only 1 of 2 keys actually yours) but th=
e funds would be trapped so it's unlikely anyone would do it.=20
Can you take a look at the Gist and TXs on TestNet I sent out, and see if th=
at's in line with what you expected?
I would also greatly appreciate if you could review the discussion around do=
ing two ECDH operations with a single ephemeral key.
Thanks!
--Jeremy
|
