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
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
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 <etotheipi@gmail.com>) id 1W2oqi-0003xq-PC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:15:08 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.128.51 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.128.51; envelope-from=etotheipi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qe0-f51.google.com;
Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W2oqi-0005Uf-4Z
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:15:08 +0000
Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a11so506452qen.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:15:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.224.56.5 with SMTP id w5mr43257046qag.60.1389647702687;
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (c-76-111-96-126.hsd1.md.comcast.net.
[76.111.96.126])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm27240262qab.19.2014.01.13.13.15.02
for <multiple recipients>
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:15:02 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52D45755.60402@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:15:01 -0500
From: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
References: <op.w9c5o7vgyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<20140110102037.GB25749@savin>
<op.w9kkxcityldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
<CABsx9T2G=yqSUGr0+Ju5-z9P++uS20AwLC+c3DnFMHtcQjQK6w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTz0TaGhym_35V3N2-vHVzU9BeuV8q+QJjwh5bg77FEZg@mail.gmail.com>
<20140113194049.GJ38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CANAnSg30V01B_3LCJ09sTwcsYa4_WOg3sKd-=p6COZS6w0b-uA@mail.gmail.com>
<52D4458C.6010909@gmail.com> <20140113201407.GB7941@petertodd.org>
<52D44F86.1040407@gmail.com>
<20140113210217.GO38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20140113210217.GO38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
(etotheipi[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: 1W2oqi-0005Uf-4Z
Cc: 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: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 21:15:08 -0000
On 01/13/2014 04:02 PM, Roy Badami wrote:
>> It's not public. When I say "please pay me" I also say "use this
>> multiplier".
> Sending a "please pay me" message is really great for business
> transactions.
>
> But I think the use case that Peter Todd mentions is actually *the*
> most important currently under-addresesd use case:
>
>> With stealth addresses the user experience can be as simple as you
>> telling me on the phone "hey! send me that 0.234 BTC you owe me!",
>> me clicking on "Send to Alan Reiner (verified by PGP)" (perhaps
>> again on my off-line second factor device for a multi-sig wallet)
>> and tellling you "OK, sent".
> Lots of work is being done on handling consumer-to-merchant
> transactions. BIP 70 does a good job of tackling the online purchase
> case, and the work that Andreas Schildbach is doing with Bluetooth and
> NFC will improve the options for a payer in a physical PoS transaction
> who might not have Internet connectivity on their smartphone.
>
> But relatively little work (that I know of) is being done on
> non-transactional personal payments - that is, being able to pay money
> to friends and other people that you have a face-to-face relationship
> with.
>
> What I want... no need... is to be able to open my wallet, select a
> friend from my address book, and transfer the $10 I owe them from the
> bar last night.
>
> I don't care - within reason - what process is involved in getting my
> friend set up in my address book. That may well requires two way
> communication (e.g. over NFC). But once it's set up, I should be able
> to just select the payee from the address book and send them some
> funds. Anything else is just too complciated.
>
> I don't know if stealth addresses are the best solution to address
> this use case, but AFAIK the only current solution to this use case is
> to store a long-lived Bitcoin address in the addresss book.
>
> roy
>
Fair enough. I haven't spent much time thinking about that use case.
Though, I question the feasibility of anything that requires O(N) EC
multiply operations/sec, where N is the total volume of transactions
moving over the network. But I guess if the prefix is big enough, the
scanning operations will remain feasible forever.
|
