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-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YbLvz-0005NH-PU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:31:51 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of outlook.com designates 65.54.190.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=65.54.190.15; envelope-from=thyshizzle@outlook.com; helo=BAY004-OMC1S4.hotmail.com; Received: from bay004-omc1s4.hotmail.com ([65.54.190.15]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YbLvv-0005mm-Kn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:31:51 +0000 Received: from BAY403-EAS379 ([65.54.190.61]) by BAY004-OMC1S4.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.22751); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:31:41 -0700 X-TMN: [/EBExczuH58gkSLlcPJG8nMtATA5PV82] X-Originating-Email: [thyshizzle@outlook.com] Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_23b123cf-5b75-4045-8abe-3d3df6ecf619_" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gregory Maxwell From: Thy Shizzle Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:31:35 +1100 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2015 04:31:41.0522 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC4D1B20:01D06846] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (thyshizzle[at]outlook.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [65.54.190.15 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YbLvv-0005mm-Kn Cc: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:31:51 -0000 --_23b123cf-5b75-4045-8abe-3d3df6ecf619_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Indeed=2C and with things like BIP32 it would be pointless to use one addre= ss=2C and I agree it is silly to reuse addresses=2C some for the privacy as= pect=2C some for the revealing the pubkey on a spend aspect. But just becau= se it is silly=2C doesn't mean it's necessarily required for devs to disall= ow it. I mean if a business doesn't care who can see their bitcoin takings= and they are willing to keep shifting the bitcoin and live woth the expose= d pubkey let them yea? http://www.forexminute.com/bitcoin/australian-association-asks-voluntary-bi= tcoin-register-individuals-companies-51183 ________________________________ From: Gregory Maxwell Sent: =E2=80=8E27/=E2=80=8E03/=E2=80=8E2015 2:13 PM To: Thy Shizzle Cc: s7r@sky-ip.org=3B Tom Harding=3B Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse On Fri=2C Mar 27=2C 2015 at 1:51 AM=2C Thy Shizzle = wrote: > Yes I agree=2C also there is talks about a government body I know of warm= ing > to bitcoin by issuing addresses for use by a business and then all > transactions can be tracked for that business entity. This is one proposa= l I > saw put forward by a country specific bitcoin group to their government a= nd > so not allowing address reuse would neuter that :( I hope you're mistaken=2C because that would be a serious attack on the design of bitcoin=2C which obtains privacy and fungibility=2C both essential properties of any money like good=2C almost exclusively through avoiding reuse. [What business would use a money where all their competition can see their sales and identify their customers=2C where their customers can track their margins and suppliers? What individuals would use a system where their inlaws could criticize their spending? Where their landlord knows they got a raise=2C or where thieves know their net worth?] Though no one here is currently suggesting blocking reuse as a network rule=2C the reasonable and expected response to what you're suggesting would be to do so. If some community wishes to choose not to use Bitcoin=2C great=2C but they don't get to simply choose to screw up its utility for all the other users. You should advise this "country specific bitcoin group" that they shouldn't speak for the users of a system which they clearly do not understand. --_23b123cf-5b75-4045-8abe-3d3df6ecf619_ Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Inde= ed=2C and with things like BIP32 it would be pointless to use one address= =2C and I agree it is silly to reuse addresses=2C some for the privacy aspe= ct=2C some for the revealing the pubkey on a spend aspect. But just because it is silly=2C doesn't mean it's necessarily requ= ired for devs to disallow it. I mean if a business doesn't care who can see= their =3B bitcoin takings and they are willing to keep shifting the bi= tcoin and live woth the exposed pubkey let them yea?

http://www.forexminute.com/bitcoin/australian-association-asks-voluntary-bi= tcoin-register-individuals-companies-51183
From: Gregory Maxwell
Sent: =E2=80=8E27/=E2=80=8E03/=E2=80=8E2015 2:13 PM
To: Thy Shizzle
Cc: s7r@sky-ip.org=3B Tom Harding=3B Bitcoin Development
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Address Expiration to Prevent Reuse
On Fri=2C Mar 27=2C 2015 at 1:51 AM=2C Thy Shizzle= <=3Bthyshizzle@outlook.com>=3B wrote:
>=3B Yes I agree=2C also there is talks about a government body I know of= warming
>=3B to bitcoin by issuing addresses for use by a business and then all >=3B transactions can be tracked for that business entity. This is one pr= oposal I
>=3B saw put forward by a country specific bitcoin group to their governm= ent and
>=3B so not allowing address reuse would neuter that :(

I hope you're mistaken=2C because that would be a serious attack on the
design of bitcoin=2C which obtains privacy and fungibility=2C both
essential properties of any money like good=2C almost exclusively
through avoiding reuse.

[What business would use a money where all their competition can see
their sales and identify their customers=2C where their customers can
track their margins and suppliers? What individuals would use a system
where their inlaws could criticize their spending? Where their
landlord knows they got a raise=2C or where thieves know their net
worth?]

Though no one here is currently suggesting blocking reuse as a network
rule=2C the reasonable and expected response to what you're suggesting
would be to do so.

If some community wishes to choose not to use Bitcoin=2C great=2C but they<= br> don't get to simply choose to screw up its utility for all the other
users.

You should advise this "=3Bcountry specific bitcoin group"=3B that = they
shouldn't speak for the users of a system which they clearly do not
understand.
--_23b123cf-5b75-4045-8abe-3d3df6ecf619_--