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
|
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 <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1RungX-0000am-Rw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:14:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RungS-000220-Fb
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:14:25 +0000
Received: by wgbdr12 with SMTP id dr12so7087797wgb.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:14:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.95.1 with SMTP id dg1mr34971919wib.21.1328631254341; Tue,
07 Feb 2012 08:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.223.112.199 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:14:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201202071004.37615.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CABsx9T0-eMkfJiOL_2VN5TUuvs_fYANa3XXoM5OX4AMP1W2iSA@mail.gmail.com>
<201202061054.26448.luke@dashjr.org>
<201202071004.37615.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:14:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0jXxwc8N2i4kVOqNP5B8AgiPUJuxMcgB7=WU2cCeq-iQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
(gavinandresen[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: 1RungS-000220-Fb
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version 0.6 release candidate 1 plan
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, 07 Feb 2012 16:14:25 -0000
> Do you have an alternative solution to the
> problem of green addresses spamming the blockchain?
Sure, here's one:
Green address provider give a REST-ful API, that provides the
following functionality:
+ Give transaction ID and credentials, request that the transaction be
declared "green"
(sender's wallet site/software would do this)
+ Give transaction ID, return boolean "has this transaction been
deeclared green?"
As I said, I think any design that relies on clients recognizing two
variations of a transaction is a very bad idea.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
