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 ) id 1X6y1w-0004EH-2E for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:24:08 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 74.125.82.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1X6y1v-0003zB-3G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:24:08 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so4483669wgh.14 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:24:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=UvAFF0aU0OdnGRUPVILEPqKZKJ+aPM7z+2eVyxdKxCU=; b=i0oGIlZr+lwPjeeaqBf1G9IUfDNRJyfkFzsHB1e5RTyeQ/FhasDsBvTwW/nx8ChcmP jxfweHMlNGP+J+CwMXG8DBnK85IX0J/hmGqXs+lEqzwnjuZVFgP3La1keQwQ28hcKixK R8Vv1RFxjknny29MjARhCk2PzIyuNKjNaA+MOs90Kut/5fEdnPLm5BdgIxN81hM3Dsk8 Kh8DfqXMitBx5Pdxq5BopJyU9znHF4FAAlHXN3Sa5flvzZNXli9Nj8xnMvyJEuayfUXK t7/hD+UBdTMjSbxCkEB6umbfc/+pE6OYsaMTIYpCkS8LDawbRkCRuVk6qJUD8oWC2b3X Iowg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl++odGShMvzaxCWcY+ZQBJDVGpMyYNg8k9MaxpsYtApZ7TM2vkgYhAHu+gdJuCdoNOcy/v X-Received: by 10.194.186.178 with SMTP id fl18mr24791902wjc.83.1405412640790; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:24:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.5.67 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:23:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Jeff Garzik Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:23:40 -0400 Message-ID: To: Wladimir 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 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: 1X6y1v-0003zB-3G Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin address TTL & key expiration? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:24:08 -0000 On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Wladimir wrote: > In my opinion encouraging the use of the payment protocol and > deprecating the use of addresses is the best way forward, and not just > for this reason. There are major gaps that the payment protocol doesn't cover. There are several deployed use cases where you are provided/request an address, an API provides one, and one or more incoming payments arrive as the user sends them over minutes/hours/days/weeks. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/