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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YaiG1-0000BS-6M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:09:53 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.43]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YaiFz-0000Z8-Rg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:09:53 +0000 Received: from resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.107]) by resqmta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 7m9c1q0012Ka2Q501m9mcE; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:09:46 +0000 Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:1e4e:1f4d:332c:3bf6]) by resomta-ch2-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id 7m9k1q00C2JF60R01m9luk; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:09:46 +0000 From: Matt Whitlock To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 06:09:44 -0400 Message-ID: <21636587.PbJN2MUECh@crushinator> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.6 (Linux/3.18.7-gentoo; KDE/4.14.6; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com> References: <55121611.1030104@thinlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [69.252.207.43 listed in list.dnswl.org] 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: 1YaiFz-0000Z8-Rg Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse 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, 25 Mar 2015 10:09:53 -0000 On Tuesday, 24 March 2015, at 6:57 pm, Tom Harding wrote: > It appears that a limited-lifetime address, such as the fanciful > > address = 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366 > > where 349366 is the last valid block for a transaction paying this > address, could be made reuse-proof with bounded resource requirements, The core devs seem not to like ideas such as this because a transaction that was once valid can become invalid due to a chain reorganization.