📝 Summary: Silent payment addresses should have an expiration date to prevent funds from being lost forever. Adding a field to encode the expiration date is suggested, with different byte lengths for different granularities. However, there is skepticism about the effectiveness of expiration dates and concerns about potential drawbacks. Some propose using a new BIP 21 URI parameter to enforce expiration at the application layer instead.
👥 Authors: • Samson Mow ( Samson Mow [ARCHIVE] (npub1kak…ucdz) ) • josibake ( josibake [ARCHIVE] (npub1lc8…p9xr) ) • Dan Gould ( Dan Gould [ARCHIVE] (npub1l58…xs5k) ) • Brandon Black ( Brandon Black [ARCHIVE] (npub1txg…rmss) ) • Peter Todd ( Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] (npub1m23…2np2) )
📅 Messages Date Range: 2023-08-04 to 2023-08-10
✉️ Message Count: 9
📚 Total Characters in Messages: 36629
Messages Summaries
✉️ Message by Peter Todd on 04/08/2023: Silent Payment addresses, which allow for multiple payments without privacy concerns, should have an expiration date to prevent funds from being lost forever. Adding a 3-byte field to encode the expiration date is a simple solution. Wallets should have a default expiration date and attempts to pay an expired address should fail.
✉️ Message by Brandon Black on 04/08/2023: Adding a field to silent payment addresses to encode expiration dates in terms of days after an epoch can fix the risk of non-expiring addresses in Bitcoin. Custom compact encoding can be used for different levels of granularity.
✉️ Message by Peter Todd on 05/08/2023: Adding a field to silent payment addresses to encode expiration dates is suggested, with different byte lengths for different granularities.
✉️ Message by Peter Todd on 05/08/2023: Samson Mow questions the 180-year limit for planning, suggesting a longer timeframe, and provides examples of historical inventions.
✉️ Message by Samson Mow on 04/08/2023: Wallet addresses generated from compromised or lost wallets can result in lost funds. Silent Payment addresses should have an expiration date, such as 180 years, to prevent this.
✉️ Message by Brandon Black on 05/08/2023: The proposal suggests using different byte lengths to encode expiration times in Bitcoin addresses, with varying granularities. The author argues against a fixed granularity and explains the potential degradation over time.
✉️ Message by josibake on 06/08/2023: The author acknowledges the feedback on expiration dates in Bitcoin but expresses skepticism about their effectiveness and potential drawbacks. They highlight scenarios where expiration dates may cause issues and suggest exploring a wallet protocol instead. They also mention privacy concerns and the need for enforceability by consensus. Overall, expiration dates are seen as a separate problem from the scope of BIP352.
✉️ Message by Dan Gould on 08/08/2023:
Silent Payments could solve the problem of address expiration by using a new BIP 21 URI parameter req-exp= to enforce expiration at the application layer.
✉️ Message by Peter Todd on 10/08/2023: The author is skeptical of expiration dates for Bitcoin addresses as they may weaken silent payments and not solve certain problems.
Follow Bitcoin Mailing List (npub15g7…08lk) for full threads