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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Vu3wj-00019p-Qq for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:33:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.53; envelope-from=taylor.gerring@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Vu3wi-0003ym-1G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:33:09 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j5so2863648qaq.5 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:33:02 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.229.122.195 with SMTP id m3mr16159062qcr.7.1387560782556; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.174.1.6] ([50.7.31.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f8sm7272580qab.19.2013.12.20.09.32.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 09:33:00 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4489585E-2A70-44CE-86EB-678D99E91838" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) From: Taylor Gerring In-Reply-To: <52B359C4.3050106@sindominio.net> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:32:57 -0600 Message-Id: <910AE313-00A5-4DEB-8974-742FE0B14116@gmail.com> References: <20131219131706.GA21179@savin> <52B359C4.3050106@sindominio.net> To: System undo crew X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (taylor.gerring[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: sindominio.net] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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: 1Vu3wi-0003ym-1G Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [unSYSTEM] DarkWallet Best Practices 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: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:33:10 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_4489585E-2A70-44CE-86EB-678D99E91838 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 I=92m inclined to agree, as this was discussed on multiple occasions and = seems to fix a lot of the address re-use problems. With hot topics like = =93coin validation=94, I think it=92s important to highlight the privacy = that generating fresh addresses from public extended keys grants us. Also thinking about implications regarding non-merchant use of Payment = Protocol, encouraging the exchange of extended public keys instead of a = single address could be a boon for Payment Protocol to actually be = useful for users. Initially, the idea was that the merchant would = generate a new address from an extended key and include that in the = Payment Request. How do we handle pushing the extended public key down = to the wallet itself? Do we just shoehorn the exchange of keys into the = Payment Protocol itself via a special tag or would this require more = substantive change? Services could develop to facilitate the exchange = (acting as a sort of =93PP gateway=94) or wallet software might be able = to directly communicate, perhaps by exchanging PGP-encrypted files in = Payment Protocol format via Bluetooth, AirDrop, email, BitMessage, or = whatever future communications channel comes into being.=20 Thanks again to Peter for putting together a consolidated list of = topics! Taylor On Dec 19, 2013, at 2:40 PM, caedes wrote: > I feel it's missing mention of using (or not) *extended public keys* > from bip 32 to share multiple addresses in one go, so regular payments > can be done without asking for further addresses. Also since whoever = has > the extended key can generate public keys this might help P2SH where = the > public key is also needed. --Apple-Mail=_4489585E-2A70-44CE-86EB-678D99E91838 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
I=92m inclined to agree, as this was discussed = on multiple occasions and seems to fix a lot of the address re-use = problems. With hot topics like =93coin validation=94, I think it=92s = important to highlight the privacy that generating fresh addresses from = public extended keys grants us.

Also thinking = about implications regarding non-merchant use of Payment Protocol, = encouraging the exchange of extended public keys instead of a single = address could be a boon for Payment Protocol to actually be useful for = users. Initially, the idea was that the merchant would generate a new = address from an extended key and include that in the Payment Request. = How do we handle pushing the extended public key down to the wallet = itself? Do we just shoehorn the exchange of keys into the Payment = Protocol itself via a special tag or would this require more substantive = change? Services could develop to facilitate the exchange (acting as a = sort of =93PP gateway=94) or wallet software might be able to directly = communicate, perhaps by exchanging PGP-encrypted files in Payment = Protocol format via Bluetooth, AirDrop, email, BitMessage, or whatever = future communications channel comes into = being. 

Thanks again to Peter for putting = together a consolidated list of = topics!

Taylor



On Dec 19, 2013, at 2:40 PM, caedes <caedes@sindominio.net> = wrote:

I feel it's missing mention of using = (or not) *extended public keys*
from bip 32 to share multiple = addresses in one go, so regular payments
can be done without asking for = further addresses. Also since whoever has
the extended key can generate = public keys this might help P2SH where the
public key is also = needed.

= --Apple-Mail=_4489585E-2A70-44CE-86EB-678D99E91838--