From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4tgm-0007nG-Ma for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:26:16 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z4tgl-0002Eu-81 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:26:16 +0000 Received: from plantcutter.riseup.net (plantcutter-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4639B42F45; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:26:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id ED20F23999 Message-ID: <55804E1F.7000104@riseup.net> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 09:26:07 -0700 From: odinn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Justus Ranvier , Bitcoin Dev References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) 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 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines 0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z4tgl-0002Eu-81 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Reusable payment codes 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, 16 Jun 2015 16:26:16 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is very well done. Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1083961.0 I have no response from Peter Todd back on it other than "my time is better spent focusing on more fundemental issues" and "I've also got no-one interested in funding stealth address development right now," when several people (myself included) offered to send donations to see the BIP (63) advance, no donation address was posted, so... waiting for him to act on that. I'm definitely supportive of seeing what you've written up here as Reusable payment codes move to draft in https://github.com/bitcoin/bips When you can, please write up something on bitcointalk as well. On 04/24/2015 01:00 PM, Justus Ranvier wrote: > Hash: SHA1 >=20 >=20 > https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.m ediawiki > >=20 >=20 > This link contains an RFC for a new type of Bitcoin address called > a "payment code" >=20 >=20 > Payment codes are SPV-friendly alternatives to DarkWallet-style > stealth addresses which provide useful features such as positively > identifying senders to recipients and automatically providing for > transaction refunds. >=20 >=20 > Payment codes can be publicly advertised and associated with a > real-life identity without causing a loss of financial privacy. >=20 >=20 > Compared to stealth addresses, payment codes require less > blockchain data storage. >=20 >=20 > Payment codes require 65 bytes of OP_RETURN data per > sender-recipient pair, while stealth addresses require 40 bytes per > transaction. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- > >=20 One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications=20 > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable > Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM > Insight. http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development > mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net=20 > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >=20 - --=20 http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" https://keybase.io/odinn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgE4fAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CjgkH/i0aX4aJaOjrbI2xzWbPeL1T /APSvSqV0D610ljbw/MuRRFVagnK3lCs73fYolKw9uFG0cnwhIWJ53mCqPWhM5nL kIejDTHr9jQ2tbXrU2L481Oat1Z6vtdQj7LolXFfD3Ktqz+sqp//gBaC9EEZ5nOq 4oz71Am58pf8+XGhtJk0+4XDXzFNd71bKKY+nMf9f3bwqNX93jHiF48hXwijFPC4 MOZmYRh3Sf5LAVP5p1JY3aJRQv4M/W0L2RDC+GW8Ol997etQSGGLhESihNNPw1m8 GEqJLBmUBkavzsRpZ009czfzL7EiCwsMbOrVw918o2Y9NnVpY9a9cBNB+UJgCmk=3D =3DwAGz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----