Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173

[Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

First, there’s been no discussion so far for address expiration to be part of “the protocol” which usually means consensus rules or p2p. This is purely about wallets and wallet information exchange protocols.

There’s no way for the sender to know whether an address has been used without a complete copy of the block chain and more indexes than even Bitcoin Core maintains. It’s simply not an option now, let alone as the blockchain grows into the future.

> On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:23 PM, Nick Pudar via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> As a long term silent reader of this list, I felt compelled to comment on this address expiration topic.  I don't believe that address expiration should be part of the protocol.  I think instead that the "sending" feature should by default offer guidance to request a fresh address from the recipient.  Also allow the receiver of funds to be able to generate an "invoice" that the sender acts on.
> 
> I also think that re-directs are fraught with privacy issues.  At the end of the day, the ultimate burden is on the sender (with much self interest from the receiver) that the correct address is being used.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2392 bytes --]