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 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 To: Jeff Garzik 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: <201407151448.57223.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: 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 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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...