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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <tomh@thinlink.com>) id 1YaqHj-00084c-JI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:44:11 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YaqHi-00012a-IV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:44:11 +0000
Received: by pdnc3 with SMTP id c3so36958610pdn.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=lbwwVeZVkcqyvfxeKLwfFLSLWFQJJWqGb3ns06qhWmw=;
b=JXRSVoGv1L/bHgs61ur0w3D2yzy8CJGx3pMtn96rFz6JLNhUKtW7HQEJEsbqQ81IwY
QAAa5Q2+1JfjSrhjRvy5q4W67X9owbTs9LdTXtIKhSpIeApNEFbkknfm7+K5D6t/pxTb
wSW5zz1Kf8ZX4USGdHBRga6dEQgIqadNJp69I8jhPePhJf0wH2jsjK8ovuvZBYjcW8Tl
SbBAjcEdiXqm6JjzOhp2M04EpLIrqrdxdIbcpQZOiU7i9GtfljDUUvB8CLHV06voq9Z6
eh7ani18qLg86J07KG7AU3hvKv6PF8WhRwADgZK/XsANVrNqV1WTjNRKJtSe2UDOmhRI
SXyg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFhVAr/sIcK5BhdFoPUSKp6OLlk9PpOY9GhTRhw8WwJDcdVSjdMeo+Lk9LBVukjC076B11
X-Received: by 10.69.12.133 with SMTP id eq5mr19798071pbd.158.1427309044814;
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.89] (99-6-44-248.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net.
[99.6.44.248])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id hz8sm3203377pac.5.2015.03.25.11.44.00
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <551301F0.9020806@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:44:00 -0700
From: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
References: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com>
<CAAS2fgRzskGcHjEhJLnyu-VMTR49i-Wo9TbOOqkHqEasxuO71A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgRzskGcHjEhJLnyu-VMTR49i-Wo9TbOOqkHqEasxuO71A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1YaqHi-00012a-IV
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 18:44:11 -0000
On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> address =3D 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366
> Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply
> include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after
> that time.
Is this assuming payment protocol? A major benefit of address
expiration, if it works, would be that it works without requiring
payment protocol.=20
> If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your
> target and send anyways.
Are you suggesting there is no implementation of address expiration that
wouldn't allow the string to be trivially changed by the sender?
>> Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address
> Requires a unprunable verification state.
I don't understand, explanation would be appreciated.
|
