From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z55zL-0006Vk-Fh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:34:15 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.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-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z55zJ-0002kt-6h for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:34:15 +0000 Received: from berryeater.riseup.net (berryeater-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.120]) (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 938BA40DDF; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:34:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla) with ESMTPSA id 5F56F400E3 Message-ID: <558106CC.10203@riseup.net> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 22:34:04 -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: Peter Todd References: <55804E1F.7000104@riseup.net> <20150616174641.GA29819@muck> In-Reply-To: <20150616174641.GA29819@muck> 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: -2.0 (--) 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 0.0 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z55zJ-0002kt-6h Cc: Justus Ranvier , Bitcoin Dev 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: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 05:34:15 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter, my response below On 06/16/2015 10:46 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:26:07AM -0700, odinn wrote: >> 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 se e >> the BIP (63) advance, no donation address was posted, so... waiting >> for him to act on that. >=20 > Sorry, but I'm looking at the huge amount of work that I'll likely hav e > responding to the blocksize issue, so I think I'm inclined to shelve > work on BIP63 for now. I seriously find this pretty sad... you said that paying rent was an issue and your time was better spent on "more fundamental issues..." but the very least you could do is post a donation address... Is there someone who was working with you closely on the concept who could take it up since you are not going to be working on it? >=20 > Feel free to take it up; a (>=3D2)-part standard describing the resuabl= e > codes aspect, and separately how the ephemeral key is transmitted to t he > recipient makes sense to me. >=20 I don't want to camp on Justus's thread on reusable payment codes ~ but on the subject of BIP 63, it just did make sense to mention... so if someone does have interest in working on it... please go to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1083961.0 and reply there. - --=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 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVgQbMAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CD8gH/3jV+mLO9qv3t6JFxIvLMPtr slGbymQtuqfAC09b6ybx3p6u9I1o1Nb3IgK1riu/Z3AzHxlnuYVUxN3N5ns0zGnx F2WXs2suEa20YJkQ6dxZWLdNBjnUIEGGgXAit8X21LqVsqPfeZcocOWSeRDlePhk /HRFLVtMehqfqjbuFAaAewVZUyT4Bn+3IU74krqR3e3YA00/ym1C5xCE3/kHvKIL UF8EW9GgVYKuoyQdH3ICDwjiudwPOwIC4Ry0huaJgla43122RkwqYB+5kVr1583u dx3VW8vW8HyQZJF+vb8d3F57R6FC6zYtFhCe0IzDIh+6xQxStk5zosMNIrtPKp4=3D =3Dh8Ib -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----