Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:20:18 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Message-ID: <20170927212018.GB2034@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20170927160654.GA12492@savin.petertodd.org>
	<31968FFC-11BC-4331-B602-70B1F74AEEFC@friedenbach.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Y7xTucakfITjPcLV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <31968FFC-11BC-4331-B602-70B1F74AEEFC@friedenbach.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to
	BIP-173
Precedence: list


--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:03:44PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> While there is a lot that I would like to comment on, for the moment I wi=
ll just mention that you should consider using the 17 bit relative time for=
mat used in CSV as an offset from the birthdate of the address, a field all=
 addresses should also have.

Why should addresses have a birthdate? I don't see why that information wou=
ld
be relevant to the person sending funds, and it could pose a privacy risk.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZzBYOAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7RdcIAKPLrFm8Bh/Sebrz/rV6LL37
fy8dDeHXk7LbG/yuPl/FmKn/47ikn5bvDTpoEjupuPsuR5VhJKuQkWVFeLgrpMdn
1didGbBhWdyAgSMyrtDj6W+jP8nf82iVNxuAE5ccq8h+pHbXNA7isKW2FhXVO5Yc
03/D8uaOQ9AGgq5wGG+NbYdUXa0uq3k6mqvKVFwmiY9wuOH9G2sOxXX18ku0pM82
gEYPBnXuNNRgdYKibhUnrYxYNvax6eCuyxGBAQ2oqltFpVVEE9oISOzH9A6qt28y
5Ammnhd4trAcVRyqAGpV6oLr/LdXrOJ4xMGyA5Hp0QbBF3z54ythjkPQPiUcan0=
=ljvC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Y7xTucakfITjPcLV--