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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VrGaZ-0004T2-4G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:26:43 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com designates 209.85.212.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.169; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com; helo=mail-wi0-f169.google.com; Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VrGaX-0008Te-AJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:26:43 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id hn6so1567750wib.2 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:26:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6AFSD6zUwoviQ/gM3Gh747Y4S8+SDpRvcBzc/ZVwT0A=; b=gxhR1ASPwQh7B3f2Ylmof925wop6mKpTskJk/wE22InS0dclKnW8TCHcOPpawFHHaf U/i0UeLekWsjky2Yq2+1pzzDZz6Yi6jD8Qwp6J47t2SxJowBfU6P4WP3GYAKLkLBwPcU 4hrrN3M6qO1jH0AfPmHv752c+76muQda76ZtiRPgDGBwTNyk8YlEQ/9X6+5eOzcgiR6I HwDBTtdoi6RE7HsvT9ervEqHA1UlGUkJBHXMkWjhC1akQeGxgY2NcR/z2mK44I0gS8UB SjwicUQxwxz9kfQzzjdLHeSfdQU36UxIXucbYC1+/mWdzfcl/NeeEUlpOdI7qdAzoaGK oUHg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+jGPOnTjFgD+Dvprny/zpfVh0x1VJh0x08ohaSvR4886NpCW7RYcTeA+qYhdzx8gujKOB MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.104.42 with SMTP id gb10mr9050747wjb.16.1386894394907; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:26:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.164.164 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:26:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:26:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Gavin Andresen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) 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 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 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: bitpay.com] X-Headers-End: 1VrGaX-0008Te-AJ Cc: Bitcoin Dev , Paul Rabahy Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Merge avoidance and P2P connection encryption 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, 13 Dec 2013 00:26:43 -0000 On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote: > If the use case is: I give the Foundation a "here's where to pay my salary" > PaymentRequest, maybe with several Outputs each having a different xpubkey, > then it seems to me the Foundation's wallet software should take care of > iterating. Absolutely. This is a key address-non-reuse case we really need to solve. Miner payouts, BitPay salary payouts, etc. all use a statically provided, manually changed address. Rotating through multiple outputs is a stopgap -- but IMO a useful one. HD wallets will solve this in a better way, but existing randkey systems will be around for a long time. -- Jeff Garzik Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist BitPay, Inc. https://bitpay.com/