📅 Original date posted:2014-05-09
📝 Original message:On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 05:34:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > Ah, you're still misunderstanding my point: You can get atomicity in the
> > worst-case where the communications medium fails *and* stealth payments
> > that use up no extra space in the blockchain. This gives you the best of
> > both worlds.
>
>
> Sounds great! How does a lightweight client identify such transactions
> without any markers?
The exact same way you're proposing: via the payment protocol.
If something goes wrong and a payment gets lost, that's where you
implement a last-ditch "scan for stealth payments" button or similar
that either just asks a semi-trusted server to scan the blockchain for
you, or accepts the bandwidth hit and does so itself. (note that the
scan pubkey used to find payments is unable to spend those payments)
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000074d6fdc4442dae1b7273f77f2deec988daf63d3e1ec6eeea
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140509/d6f88ca3/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 15:21:10
in reply to nevent1q…vxyt
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:21:10Event JSON
{
"id": "b341d01caf13e9b8c4296fe7c7972de2d21829c1b8751e922a0e153c17c548e3",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686151270,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8514559181783b25e020bd1cec2b637ea86474de420a1085a131f4b38759b722",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1505e3cf685a8acf0e12b1db029a5da1dc872bb46e77f71e867e0cf23ee508bb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-05-09\n📝 Original message:On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 05:34:07PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Ah, you're still misunderstanding my point: You can get atomicity in the\n\u003e \u003e worst-case where the communications medium fails *and* stealth payments\n\u003e \u003e that use up no extra space in the blockchain. This gives you the best of\n\u003e \u003e both worlds.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e Sounds great! How does a lightweight client identify such transactions\n\u003e without any markers?\n\nThe exact same way you're proposing: via the payment protocol.\n\nIf something goes wrong and a payment gets lost, that's where you\nimplement a last-ditch \"scan for stealth payments\" button or similar\nthat either just asks a semi-trusted server to scan the blockchain for\nyou, or accepts the bandwidth hit and does so itself. (note that the\nscan pubkey used to find payments is unable to spend those payments)\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000074d6fdc4442dae1b7273f77f2deec988daf63d3e1ec6eeea\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 685 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140509/d6f88ca3/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "d46a45e6d8578e4ba957c8e72042ebba7e30615a30817340c0ab82dd89f50021936cc6799966733fdd303f5b25c4ee66b3bfa345fbb46757b7d1e4916cac9273"
}