On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> 15+ Mio Coinbase users
Who's payment protocol SSL cert was expired for months without even
generating a post on reddit. Not exactly convincing there.
The fact that someone supports it doesn't mean its being used.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:45:32PM +0200, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On 09/29/2017 11:55 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> >>> 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 t
On 09/29/2017 11:55 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Has
Op 29 sep. 2017, om 05:18 heeft Peter Todd het volgende
geschreven:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:43:05PM +0300, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> Peter Todd wrote:
>> Perhaps outside the scope of BIP173, but what about baking it into the
>> protocol? That way a transaction that's se
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:44:11AM +0200, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> 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
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 - a
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:43:05PM +0300, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Peter Todd wrote:
> Perhaps outside the scope of BIP173, but what about baking it into the
> protocol? That way a transaction that's sent too late, simply won't get
> confirmed. This removes the need for refund logi
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> What do you mean by "an embedded amount"?
I ask you to pay 1 Bitcoin to bc1blahblah.
...you make a typo, or a poorly placed cosmic ray switches it in your
ram to bc1blohblahbah. No problem, it'll get rejected. (even if the
cosmic ray happens
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:58:30AM +, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also
> > operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users
> >
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 -
On Thursday 28 September 2017 2:13:48 PM Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
> >> expiration time.
> >
> > The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhea
Op 28 sep. 2017, om 18:06 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 09/28/2017 04:41 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>>> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is
>>> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact
On 09/28/2017 04:41 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> The payment request message is just as one-way as an address is. It is
>> already being emailed and printed on an invoice, in fact it often acts
>> as the invoice.
>
> True and the more complicated fields, like a digital signature,
Op 28 sep. 2017, om 17:13 heeft Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev
het volgende geschreven:
>
> On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>>> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
>>> expiration time.
>>
>> The BIP-70 payment protocol has signifi
On 09/28/2017 02:43 PM, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
>> expiration time.
>
> The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly
> requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it
Peter Todd wrote:
>
> Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also
> operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users
> sending funds to addresses whose private keys have been lost or stolen;
[...]
>
> To help combat this problem, I sugges
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 compl
tion.org
> on behalf of Chris
> Priest via bitcoin-dev
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 27, 2017 3:35 PM
> *To:* Peter Todd; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added
> to BIP-173
>
> A better solution is to just have the s
This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
expiration time.
On 09/27/2017 06:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also
> operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users
> se
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also
> operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users
> sending funds to addresses whose private keys have been lost or stolen; the
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 7:35 PM, Chris Priest via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> A better solution is to just have the sending wallet check to see if the
> address you are about to send to has been used before.
So every wallet needs all the addresses ever used and a fast index into them?
This seems pretty
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:06:54PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Being just an expiration time, seconds-level resolution is unnecessary, and
> may give the wrong impression. I'd suggest either:
>
> 1) Hour resolution - 2^24 hours = 1914 years
> 2) Month resolution - 2^16 months = 5458
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:03:44PM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> While there is a lot that I would like to comment on, for the moment I will
> just mention that you should consider using the 17 bit relative time format
> used in CSV as an offset from the birthdate of the address, a field all
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:35:33PM -0600, Chris Priest wrote:
> A better solution is to just have the sending wallet check to see if the
> address you are about to send to has been used before. If it's a fresh
My concern is not primarily people re-using addresses, but rather people using
stale add
that the correct address is being used.
From: bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
on behalf of Chris Priest via
bitcoin-dev
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 3:35 PM
To: Peter Todd; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Address e
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9722
What still needs to be done is that during the first start up after
updating with this popup, the wallet needs to scan for addresses that
have been used in the past. That way the popup isn't only shown for
addresses that are reused after updating.
A better solution is to just have the sending wallet check to see if the
address you are about to send to has been used before. If it's a fresh
address, it sends it through without any popup alert. If the address has
history going back a certain amount of time, then a popup comes up and
notifies th
While there is a lot that I would like to comment on, for the moment I will
just mention that you should consider using the 17 bit relative time format
used in CSV as an offset from the birthdate of the address, a field all
addresses should also have.
This would also mean that addresses cannot
I think we need something like this. Hour resolution seems like the
correct choice to me.
Please someone steal whatever code you can from this PR when
implementing the UI for BIP173 expiration:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9722
I have a rebased version as well if anyone wants it.
On
Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also
operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users
sending funds to addresses whose private keys have been lost or stolen; there
are multiple examples of exchanges getting hacked, with users continuin
30 matches
Mail list logo
