From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Rb9An-0008Fo-5M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:08:25 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=timon.elviejo@gmail.com; helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Rb9Ah-0003QW-I0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:08:25 +0000 Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so3409925wgb.10 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:08:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.131.90 with SMTP id l68mr521574wei.36.1323947293421; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:08:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.81.79 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Dec 2011 03:08:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1323929094.37881.YahooMailClassic@web120902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:08:13 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= To: Walter Stanish Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) 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 (timon.elviejo[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -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 0.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1Rb9Ah-0003QW-I0 Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: [BIP 15] Aliases 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: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:08:25 -0000 2011/12/15, Walter Stanish : > Interaction is a requirement, since there seems to be a widely felt > need to preserve anonymity through the use of temporary addresses. > Generating a temporary address requires some actual processing to > achieve, since the issuing of the new address cannot be done without > interacting with the entity hosting the wallet (unless I'm missing > something?). I thought the interaction was just the server answering with an address (maybe also amount and other details). But we don't have to define how the server will get that address. Some possibilities: -A static address: less anonymity, but some people may not care. Say a donation address. -The servers stores the recipient private keys and generates a new one for each payment. -The server stores a set of addresses provided by the recipient and it manages what address it gives in each request (like in the web service I told you I can't find). > It *is* true that under the current IIBAN proposal there would be one > entity (IANA) in charge of issuing namespace portions ('institution > codes' - probably best to rename these...), however: > ... IANA reserves some namespace for bitcoin. All right. The problem comes later. " * Systems such as [BITCOIN] have quirks that require slightly delayed settlement due to the nature of their decentralized, consensus-based approach to fiscal transfer. Users requiring instant settlement MAY thus see benefit in the use of a centralized proxy system or organization as an instantaneous financial settlement provider (the 'institution'). " As I understand it (probably I'm wrong, because I haven't read the whole IIBAN draft) there would be a "bitcoin institution" that would map bitcoin addresses to the bitcoin subspace of the IIBAN. " * IANA MAY delegate management of portions of the IIBAN name space through such institutions." If we can find a deterministic method to map the subspace the all possible bitcoin addresses, everything's fine again. But if that's not possible, we would need a central institution to manage the mapping and that would be a step back in decentralization. I can't find the answer of Gavin's question "How is the mapping done?" in your post. I'll re-read it though.