Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-24 Thread Peter Todd
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 08:00:05PM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote: Let's say the payee's reusable address is 'version prefix Q1 Q2 ...', where prefix is 2 bytes. Without any length indicator. What's the payer going to put on the blockchain? How would they know what the 'rest of the space'

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-20 Thread Peter Todd
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:44:52AM -0600, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: Ignoring prefixes the cost for each reusable address is only a small percentage of the full node cost (rational: each transaction has one or more ECDSA signatures, and the derivation is no more expensive), so I would only

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-20 Thread Jeremy Spilman
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:32:31 -0800, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: I'd point out that regardless of how long the desired prefix is, the encoded prefix should probably always be constant length in all reusable addresses. I might be misunderstanding, but I think prefix length must

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-18 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 05:32:31PM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman jer...@taplink.co wrote: Choosing how many bits to put in the prefix may be difficult, particularly if transaction load changes dramatically over time. 0 or 1 bits may be just

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-18 Thread Christophe Biocca
Like any other mechanism that puts extra data in the blockchain, the sender pays the fees. This mechanism is to improve privacy for static addresses (donation links on websites and so on). I personally don't think it will be used nearly as much as BIP0032 or the payment protocol (both of which

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-16 Thread Troy Benjegerdes
But I think it's great people can choose how to trade privacy for computation/bandwidth however they want, and services can compete to offer monitoring for 0+ bit prefixes. Its not a decision with user localised effect. If most users use it with parameters giving high elimination

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-15 Thread Jeremy Spilman
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:09:01 -0800, Adam Back a...@cypherspace.org wrote: I was meaning to comment on the SPV privacy properties. For full-node use these unlinkable static addresses have quite nice properties. It also nicely solves the problem of having to educate users and wallet authors to

Re: [Bitcoin-development] unlinakble static address? spv-privacy (Re: Stealth Addresses)

2014-01-15 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Spilman jer...@taplink.co wrote: Choosing how many bits to put in the prefix may be difficult, particularly if transaction load changes dramatically over time. 0 or 1 bits may be just fine for a single user running their own node, whereas a central