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-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1W3bp1-0003T2-7f
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:32:39 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W3bp0-00035k-Ee
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:32:39 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id u14so1443704lbd.29
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:32:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.135.102 with SMTP id pr6mr3144581lbb.43.1389835951659;
Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:32:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.198.65 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:32:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <op.w9q85wkhyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
References: <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>
<CANEZrP1KAVhi_-cxCYe0rR9LUSYJ8MyW8=6eSJZ65FeY5ZJNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANAnSg0tH_bK_19rsRRHOeZgrGYeWMhW89fXPyS4DQGmS4r_7A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALimQCXgc0eXeOcqFGUaCpSF7gKEe87KzvLqHZwUysV3WyjjGw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgShChAQryfUOBp60jB-zxn2tH986fu1HfT+LsNdBYnoYg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0P5r2+kxy7w8G=h=TAhdk1jUoW5UOiv-euo47uQY0u9ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<20140115230901.GA25135@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<op.w9q85wkhyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:32:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTRKgkO15VUvVgttP-iEBNF4=G+++Xo-XsaRBmOxyXXKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
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: 1W3bp0-00035k-Ee
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? & spv-privacy
(Re: 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: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:32:39 -0000
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co> wrote:
> Choosing how many bits to put in the prefix may be difficult, particularly
> if transaction load changes dramatically over time. 0 or 1 bits may be
> just fine for a single user running their own node, whereas a central
> service might want 4 or 5 bits to keep their computation costs scalable.
Ignoring prefixes the cost for each reusable address is only a small
percentage of the full node cost (rational: each transaction has one
or more ECDSA signatures, and the derivation is no more expensive), so
I would only expect computation to be an issue for large centralized
services. (non-full nodes suffer more from just the bandwidth impact).
I'd point out that regardless of how long the desired prefix is, the
encoded prefix should probably always be constant length in all
reusable addresses. If you don't want a particular prefix then the
sender should just pick random data for the rest of the space. There
is no need to publish any additional distinguishing data in the form
of how long the prefix is.
|
