📅 Original date posted:2011-07-26
🗒️ Summary of this message: Rick Wesson proposes ways to alleviate the requirement of a unique Bitcoin address per transaction, while addressing privacy concerns. DNSSEC legality in the US is questioned.
📝 Original message:On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 12:54:23 AM Rick Wesson wrote:
> > 1. Right now you practically need a unique Bitcoin address per
> > transaction.
>
> I'd like to find ways to alievate this requirement.
Admittedly, my proposal to email a signed message allows one to reuse
addresses, but there is still a privacy concern.
> > 2. DNSSEC is on the edge of becoming illegal in the US.
>
> really, pointers please. DHS was a huge funder for DNSSEC asn .mil was
> the first domain to deploy it. I think you may be miss-informed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22PROTECT+IP+act%22+DNSSEC
> > 3. Emails aren't merely domains.
>
> correct, I was speaking about an "address" that used the same/simular
> formatting but did not use the SMTP protocol.
I only meant that foo.bar.net is not the same formatting.
foo at bar.net would be.
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1dt…u7wrs
2023-06-07 02:07:30
in reply to nevent1q…al2q
Author Public Key
npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrsPublished at
2023-06-07 02:07:30Event JSON
{
"id": "cafd9a0f2633469ec308625aec5d12522b29eaad707086f33c45cfbdac2df70d",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686103650,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8fd54e24bd93fd7d9d848a64b03950f07049907bb67ea5380cfd81c7de7d119c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"834aee16c96628c158236c00ce06af379f9ec79f1ea1a48f477854668374791b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"308e0d1efb1707ac6b92cd0b19c304882b3919f4bd59336c4a718c159bdcf63b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-07-26\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Rick Wesson proposes ways to alleviate the requirement of a unique Bitcoin address per transaction, while addressing privacy concerns. DNSSEC legality in the US is questioned.\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 12:54:23 AM Rick Wesson wrote:\n\u003e \u003e 1. Right now you practically need a unique Bitcoin address per\n\u003e \u003e transaction.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'd like to find ways to alievate this requirement.\n\nAdmittedly, my proposal to email a signed message allows one to reuse \naddresses, but there is still a privacy concern.\n\n\u003e \u003e 2. DNSSEC is on the edge of becoming illegal in the US.\n\u003e \n\u003e really, pointers please. DHS was a huge funder for DNSSEC asn .mil was\n\u003e the first domain to deploy it. I think you may be miss-informed.\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?q=%22PROTECT+IP+act%22+DNSSEC\n\n\u003e \u003e 3. Emails aren't merely domains.\n\u003e \n\u003e correct, I was speaking about an \"address\" that used the same/simular\n\u003e formatting but did not use the SMTP protocol.\n\nI only meant that foo.bar.net is not the same formatting.\nfoo at bar.net would be.",
"sig": "e4ed44a360cfa8323707b5a9386c72aae60e4d7bae0e6bf17a0e77587835b3b6141bc0cb9e3e6dcb060f3a9e8b3f8db7400af45f9335f32a622236a6e461f639"
}