On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 09:23:20PM +0100, Adam Back wrote: > Seems like you (Nadav) are the third person to reinvent this idea so far :)
Lol, fourth if you include me, although my case is rather embarassing as I had re-read Bytecoin's original post recently and completely missed the main point of it! > I wrote up some of the post-Bytecoin variants here: > > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=317835.msg4103530#msg4103530 > > The general limitation so far is its not SPV compatible, so the recipient > has to test each payment to see if its one he can compute the private key > for. Or the sender has to send the recipient out of band the derivation > key. Actually I think it has the potential to be *more* SPV compatible than the alternative, as in conjunction with prefix filters it lets you receive unlimited unrelated payments that you can find in the blockchain with a single prefix query with a fixed bandwidth/anonymity set size tradeoff. (obviously in conjunction with one of the many ways of tagging transactions for more efficient search) The BIP38 approach with UI's that make it easy to create a new address for every payment on the other hand force you to either accept higher bandwidth consumption, or decrease your anonymity set size, or lose payments. (inclusive) I've got a post talking about this in more detail as well as an overview of bloom filters vs. prefix filters that I'll publish tomorrow. (tl;dr: bloom filters have very poor O(n^2) scalability and should be depreciated) > However at present most of the bitcoin infrastructure is using the bitcoin > broadcast channel as the communication channel, which also supports payer > and payee not being simultaneously online. You have to be careful also not > to lose the key. You dont want a subsequent payer data loss event to lose > money for the recipient. You want the message to be sent atomically. > > It does seem like a very attractive proposition to be able to fix the > address reuse issue. Admonishment to not reuse addresses doesnt seem to > have been successful so far, and there are multiple widely used wallets that > reuse addresses (probably in part because they didnt implement HD wallets > and so are scared of losing addresses due to backup failure risks of non HD > wallets and fresh addresses). -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000001a96469654430aa06e4ae7c7328a7eb848c6fc63443f24e4a
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
