From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3Z6Q-0002Qi-Os for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:38:26 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1W3Z6M-0002K8-OB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:38:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by nl.grid.coop with local; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:38:15 -0600 id 000000000006A33E.0000000052D70DD7.00005ABB Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:38:15 -0600 From: Troy Benjegerdes To: Jeff Garzik Message-ID: <20140115223815.GA3180@nl.grid.coop> References: <20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1W3Z6M-0002K8-OB Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Static addresses on chains encouraging address *RE* use X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:38:27 -0000 Let's suppose I have an alternate blockchain that specifically encourages address *RE* use, and charges those that desire privacy higher transaction fees to cover the network cost in computation and storage. Does the static address privacy system still work, or does it fall apart because 95% of the transactions re-use addresses, making them 'effectively static', just like my DHCP IP that has not changed as long as I've used it? On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:44:17PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > "static address" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intended > use/direction. > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport > > wrote: > > > But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address" to > > > something more neutral? > > > > ACK. Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealth is a > > little cringe-worthy. > > > > "Private address" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys. > > > > "Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve > > awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness) > >