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 072D79FA for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:44:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCC7941E for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dxqu7-0004Zs-49 for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:44:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org From: Andreas Schildbach Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:44:11 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170927160654.GA12492@savin.petertodd.org> <20170929014543.GB11956@savin.petertodd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 In-Reply-To: <20170929014543.GB11956@savin.petertodd.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_ALL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 08:44:30 -0000 On 09/29/2017 03:45 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:09:59PM +0200, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an >> expiration time. > > I'm well aware. As the payment protocol hasn't caught on - and doesn't fully > overlap all the usecases that addresses do anyway - I think we should consider > bringing this important feature to Bitcoin addresses too. Hasn't caught on? It is used for virtually all merchant transactions, plus person to person transactions between Bitcoin Wallet users.