📅 Original date posted:2013-03-25
📝 Original message:On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:10:53PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Roy Badami <roy at gnomon.org.uk> wrote:
> > I'm not envisaging something as drastic as changing the rules to make
> > transactions to revoked addresses invalid - just an overlay protocol.
> > Although to be useful such a protocol would have to be pretty much
> > universally implemented by clients.
>
> That is quite drastic enough, as it requires adding more perpetual
> data that must remain in fast lookup for all validating nodes (the set
> of revoked 'addresses').
Maybe it should be possible for addresses to contain expiry dates, so
that revocation lists don't need to hang around forever.
> Keep in mind that this is only improvement for what is a usually
> inadvisable usage of Bitcoin to begin with... you should not be
> reusing addresses.
It may be inadvisable but in many cases it is pretty much unavoidable
as Bitcoin stands today. Granted, the payment protocol will help with
that in many use cases...
roy
Roy Badami [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tr…0f95j
2023-06-07 11:42:10
in reply to nevent1q…c7ng
Author Public Key
npub1trckpcxmceskq4cykxgwxm63n8ugrjrpu5mk83c90e4upsf7d9gqf0f95jPublished at
2023-06-07 11:42:10Event JSON
{
"id": "0314111ad1b6d0ad5d0fb37a962eff2d0ee9cb60833c0f3c5494b4eab3fb03cb",
"pubkey": "58f160e0dbc661605704b190e36f5199f881c861e53763c7057e6bc0c13e6950",
"created_at": 1686138130,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a732e61ef0ab8164631a174daac45de6d7397ab14bcc79ffbd930a7fa0d7a581",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d443b89eafb90d162733c4bdf06dc29c68734a700edd7ce4d123ffd91b93eed4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-03-25\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:10:53PM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Roy Badami \u003croy at gnomon.org.uk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I'm not envisaging something as drastic as changing the rules to make\n\u003e \u003e transactions to revoked addresses invalid - just an overlay protocol.\n\u003e \u003e Although to be useful such a protocol would have to be pretty much\n\u003e \u003e universally implemented by clients.\n\u003e \n\u003e That is quite drastic enough, as it requires adding more perpetual\n\u003e data that must remain in fast lookup for all validating nodes (the set\n\u003e of revoked 'addresses').\n\nMaybe it should be possible for addresses to contain expiry dates, so\nthat revocation lists don't need to hang around forever.\n\n\u003e Keep in mind that this is only improvement for what is a usually\n\u003e inadvisable usage of Bitcoin to begin with... you should not be\n\u003e reusing addresses.\n\nIt may be inadvisable but in many cases it is pretty much unavoidable\nas Bitcoin stands today. Granted, the payment protocol will help with\nthat in many use cases...\n\nroy",
"sig": "19349e2b515a043faf8abc5181b89d3a90f414e18347558b36e0cf1d5e6f3629a65606b940454e65e2898dc63b73b8112714d18b781f4d90d27048aa0144e1d9"
}