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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
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 1WLblV-0004Jz-Sa
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.128.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.128.171; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ve0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com ([209.85.128.171])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WLblU-0004OF-4K
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:25 +0000
Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id cz12so2983580veb.30
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:07:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.141.105 with SMTP id rn9mr824234vdb.44.1394125638601;
Thu, 06 Mar 2014 09:07:18 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.24.38 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:07:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANg-TZBv0zT6PywWJwug0DtzhQkXeE+9nMY14xKAfCysGfgkFg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANEZrP3w9c_UX3dd+7LdWNXCEwjnAG+bYWxqKYo_fzakWQu=Bg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANg-TZBv0zT6PywWJwug0DtzhQkXeE+9nMY14xKAfCysGfgkFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 18:07:18 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BQ5erZlXzLPNgLNIR0nd4iqpx0U
Message-ID: <CANEZrP38p5O+GJ0AsFUHzfuXpR=Z0m2YCZiOy0nFd8jZFuE64A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Brooks Boyd <boydb@midnightdesign.ws>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0
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: 1WLblU-0004OF-4K
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Instant / contactless payments
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, 06 Mar 2014 17:07:26 -0000
--bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> if some sort of Stealth address or HD wallet root was the identity gaining
> the reputation, then address re-use wouldn't have to be mandatory.
>
The identity would be the X.520 name in the signing cert that signed the
payment request. It doesn't have to be a difficult to obtain cert. It could
even be self signed for this use case, but then you lose the security
benefits and a key rotation would delete your reputation, so in practice I
think most people would want the reputation to accrue to the name itself.
--bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0
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"><p dir=3D"ltr">if some sort of Stealth address o=
r HD wallet root was the identity gaining the reputation, then address re-u=
se wouldn't have to be mandatory.</p>
</blockquote><div>The identity would be the X.520 name in the signing cert =
that signed the payment request. It doesn't have to be a difficult to o=
btain cert. It could even be self signed for this use case, but then you lo=
se the security benefits and a key rotation would delete your reputation, s=
o in practice I think most people would want the reputation to accrue to th=
e name itself.</div>
</div></div></div>
--bcaec51ba30776127904f3f32bb0--
|
