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
|
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 <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1W2Pjs-0002eh-7g
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:26:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.179; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ob0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com ([209.85.214.179])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W2Pjr-00037H-Fw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:26:24 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wp4so1340155obc.38
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:26:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.157.130 with SMTP id wm2mr17280326oeb.31.1389551178092;
Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:26:18 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.99.112 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:26:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <op.w9k6j4xryldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin>
<op.w9c5o7vgyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<20140110102037.GB25749@savin>
<op.w9kkxcityldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<CANEZrP0Np_FGhw=m6OffijByzz9r4D2AA78jCkzh=NZh=xrbjQ@mail.gmail.com>
<op.w9k6j4xryldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 19:26:18 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: st6LdYVdDDru0tjC5LbEBkVq09Y
Message-ID: <CANEZrP06EiiY+5hL05bxzdcFXS8V7S1KOiZj86a_ZP5EcoaMKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6afcc5e23a304efca1894
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: 1W2Pjr-00037H-Fw
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: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:26:24 -0000
--047d7bd6afcc5e23a304efca1894
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co> wrote:
> I think for displaying the payment in the UI after it's been made via
> PP, we have to fully support sending to a new standard address type anyway.
>
Why? Showing an address is meaningless, especially if the user didn't type
it in or see it somewhere else. It's just an opaque random number, all
putting it in the UI can do is make it look scarier :)
Part of the point of the payment protocol is it lets merchants provide
human readable text for transactions instead of addresses.
--047d7bd6afcc5e23a304efca1894
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Jeremy Spilman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jeremy@taplink.co" target="_blank">jeremy@taplink.co</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div><div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">I think for displaying the payment in the UI after it's been made via PP, we have to fully support sending to a new standard address type anyway.</span></div></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why? Showing an address is meaningless, especially if the user didn't type it in or see it somewhere else. It's just an opaque random number, all putting it in the UI can do is make it look scarier :)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Part of the point of the payment protocol is it lets merchants provide human readable text for transactions instead of addresses.</div></div></div></div>
--047d7bd6afcc5e23a304efca1894--
|
