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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1X6xxI-00013l-Ap
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:19:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.173 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.173; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f173.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1X6xxG-0002HR-LJ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:19:20 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id tr6so4282651ieb.18
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.32.73 with SMTP id g9mr4068508igi.31.1405412353370; Tue,
15 Jul 2014 01:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.135.66 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 01:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:19:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCJ77FkRGzTNLxOaJifKWLeC2wJ5usYf571MVOOugtMRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[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: 1X6xxG-0002HR-LJ
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
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: <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: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:19:20 -0000
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
> Proxying another's idea, from CoinSummit.
>
> The request: It would be useful to limit the lifetime of a bitcoin
> address. Intentionally prevent (somehow) bitcoins being sent to a
> pubkey/pkh after the key expires.
Payment request expiration was meant to address this.
Adding an optional expiration timestamp to addresses would be
possible, however, it would be a non-backward-compatible change and
lots of software would have to be changed at this point.
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.
Wladimir
|
