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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1W2ndj-0000A3-BN
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:57:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.219.53])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W2ndi-00037f-Iy
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:57:39 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id h16so8583909oag.40
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:57:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.165.36 with SMTP id yv4mr3486253oeb.55.1389643053100;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.99.112 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:57:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140113195319.GK38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
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>
<20140113195319.GK38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:57:33 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Jhrp3Ewty5Qg33s1nh_ouPxx8lA
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2NYE5_9G0Qar7Z4mzSzJYjVCxuBJRbZdXP9rauW=cD0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a86748b75e404efdf7c0f
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: 1W2ndi-00037f-Iy
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: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:57:39 -0000
--047d7b3a86748b75e404efdf7c0f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On further reflection, I'm not sure I understand this use case of the
> payment protocol. Since a PaymentRequest currently contains the
> Outputs that specify the addresses to send to, reusing a
> PaymentRequest like this without using stealth addresses implies
> address reuse.
Yes indeed ...... which is why we're talking about extending the protocol
(in a future version! the first version isn't even out yet!).
--047d7b3a86748b75e404efdf7c0f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">On further reflection, I'm not sure I unders=
tand this use case of the<br>
payment protocol. =C2=A0Since a PaymentRequest currently contains the<br>
Outputs that specify the addresses to send to, reusing a<br>
PaymentRequest like this without using stealth addresses implies<br>
address reuse.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes indeed ...... which is w=
hy we're talking about extending the protocol (in a future version! the=
first version isn't even out yet!).</div></div></div></div>
--047d7b3a86748b75e404efdf7c0f--
|
