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 <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1X74rj-00085g-Oh
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:03 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	id 1X74ri-00037n-H8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:03 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
	[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
	(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
	by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CA2810803A5;
	Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:42:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:41:52 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.15.1-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAJHLa0M7iEUQnJ9M4A3ev3EQqxUVQG85qucRamvMb0n-CztOFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201407151448.57223.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJHLa0Nj2f4mSKNggGH4sXZTLYNwdVGO7uMSzN7V_vVKU-6w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0Nj2f4mSKNggGH4sXZTLYNwdVGO7uMSzN7V_vVKU-6w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201407151541.53342.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
	domain
X-Headers-End: 1X74ri-00037n-H8
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 15:42:03 -0000

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:11:25 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> > They can already do this. It's perfectly valid for wallets/services to
> > ignore (and not consider as payment) transactions using an address more
> > than once. There might be race attacks if this is implemented in an
> > immediate fashon (attacker transaction gets mined first to kill a
> > payment), but should be pretty safe after a few blocks.
> 
> Sure it's valid.  However, few users will appreciate "you ignored my
> deposit" as a feature.
> 
> Payment protocol just doesn't well the use cases of,
> * an on-going payment stream from, e.g. Eligius to coinbase

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki#Serialization_format

> * deposit addresses and deposit situations

There's no reason deposits cannot use a unique payment request or address 
every time...