From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8354E98A for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:09:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f42.google.com (mail-pg0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6954454 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 188so8445786pgb.2 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=friedenbach-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=9ju0ARzIk5WX9PNbextTa5PJAxYtxI6IHRy4oUzIUa8=; b=EKEXz4DTtwvhqhvetb+h9oVukvCKYTslXeIouCTLM74xiyneYNERscHG5dfXwwjPFk 6HPHpBSczWzYSqmIPaJswZ9jjK7t4+gXLJHYhiqpfMH3mHsncqdMV6rpqXh1HNnRwYZD 7maWMm6pJj+QfoZPR5KpXvRqmLLW/+vRvJ0uniyKqMrzvQyIvhzwqYlot1wxRn+YixeX dSQIbkAfKTncZ8GAClv7S68FgUMrMsMxIrnXbgX3jg/axfmdnCV1Zaov43RB/bM7Kues tYm5roAA2ZFAP0kyr7gsRtb1K3Z0jvowgFnCuUvonWj2WixHZU64MZnkMKVvr2ynYzVP eIrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:date:references:to :in-reply-to:message-id; bh=9ju0ARzIk5WX9PNbextTa5PJAxYtxI6IHRy4oUzIUa8=; b=ehCDVUm7kYDFFyLpm0Yvir7hZiHjHozMDRMS6I7gebogSKsvnabPy8kwkeK2FnIiFp TnBO4dvftTZZzGEE7iKlbgfY8ByisPWS33v9Zh3GdNtlYbUCz7pt2mjL565hoScKdsNs 5Bw/5sTTPwTzcgkl7CyD9RskVt8gHfTtwv/NEJjvCJRUXcCaNDTo2J/hcvebw+RdxyBy YYdH+omvxTyDp/hlyhGavRV85eWn4JyA1EIsWvTBXMtKfxAoB9yAlA9NE5lvFejrlUYD RQ2jyMEO2RUzSS+d5Zr9ekmqu4fL/cGk8G5o08bAUOgMpJoEkhAYKGJCLFxhiwCJHiDT lhag== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjIyHEI/Ul2AQXQZD1A/f/Kf7SPjsALAnqevyWzQ0fYJ/NpauRs t8H3frHc6tLj6wXAWkueKMkLIyQcuLc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAkPRVp0WpCtWfHnp6pccOhRPegjhS6TC//o+N4rhIDgvXS3GPW3UQja4LrMi2rCeVZHeccgw== X-Received: by 10.84.212.2 with SMTP id d2mr2212594pli.412.1506546558416; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.228.195.77] ([73.93.152.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n83sm21423171pfi.163.2017.09.27.14.09.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:09:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ADB2D486-CE96-45BA-8316-9063939B1F88" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:09:16 -0700 References: <20170927160654.GA12492@savin.petertodd.org> To: Nick Pudar , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:51:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:09:19 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_ADB2D486-CE96-45BA-8316-9063939B1F88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 First, there=E2=80=99s been no discussion so far for address expiration = to be part of =E2=80=9Cthe protocol=E2=80=9D which usually means = consensus rules or p2p. This is purely about wallets and wallet = information exchange protocols. There=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99s 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 = wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. --Apple-Mail=_ADB2D486-CE96-45BA-8316-9063939B1F88 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
First, there=E2=80=99s been no discussion so = far for address expiration to be part of =E2=80=9Cthe protocol=E2=80=9D = which usually means consensus rules or p2p. This is purely about wallets = and wallet information exchange protocols.

There=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99= 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.

= --Apple-Mail=_ADB2D486-CE96-45BA-8316-9063939B1F88--