📅 Original date posted:2015-02-06
📝 Original message:On 02/06/2015 12:59 AM, Roy Badami wrote:
>> In this case there is no need for P2P communication, just pay to an
>> address you already have for the other party. If you want to avoid
>> address reuse, use stealth addressing.
>>
>> But yes, if you don't have a stealth address for the other party you can
>> certainly communicate in private as peers where you trust that you share
>> a public key. The core issue here is really bootstrapping of that trust
>> in an ad hoc manner.
>
> Something interactive might still be nicer, though, to avoid the risk
> of paying to an address that the payee no longer has the private key
> for. "Nooo!! Don't pay to that address. I lost my old phone so I
> generated a new wallet."
Certainly, which brings us back to proximity.
Which reminds me - it's important to keep in mind the scenario that
arises when there is no person present to represent the receiver. Such
as a vending machine purchase.
Proximity in these cases is insufficient, as the receiver is not able to
prevent application of a fraudulent NFC device or replacement of a
static QR code. In these cases BIP-70 becomes essential.
e
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150206/4f42feeb/attachment.sig>;
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 15:29:45
in reply to nevent1q…mha6
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 15:29:45Event JSON
{
"id": "4b1820e145402b962cf649f63682735ea0bcb9ff68bd07f3165a0430c4ef1edd",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686151785,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5faa01afc6e1169d2a086249776b02fde5bfa851fa5197990b9cbcbf92c53f4a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"52d4a55ebda6b2415387ba90e6dbfd4b69f4ad61ee8da2bbba2c80e6b92ea38c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"58f160e0dbc661605704b190e36f5199f881c861e53763c7057e6bc0c13e6950"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-06\n📝 Original message:On 02/06/2015 12:59 AM, Roy Badami wrote:\n\u003e\u003e In this case there is no need for P2P communication, just pay to an\n\u003e\u003e address you already have for the other party. If you want to avoid\n\u003e\u003e address reuse, use stealth addressing.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e But yes, if you don't have a stealth address for the other party you can\n\u003e\u003e certainly communicate in private as peers where you trust that you share\n\u003e\u003e a public key. The core issue here is really bootstrapping of that trust\n\u003e\u003e in an ad hoc manner.\n\u003e \n\u003e Something interactive might still be nicer, though, to avoid the risk\n\u003e of paying to an address that the payee no longer has the private key\n\u003e for. \"Nooo!! Don't pay to that address. I lost my old phone so I\n\u003e generated a new wallet.\"\n\nCertainly, which brings us back to proximity.\n\nWhich reminds me - it's important to keep in mind the scenario that\narises when there is no person present to represent the receiver. Such\nas a vending machine purchase.\n\nProximity in these cases is insufficient, as the receiver is not able to\nprevent application of a fraudulent NFC device or replacement of a\nstatic QR code. In these cases BIP-70 becomes essential.\n\ne\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 473 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150206/4f42feeb/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "37e963eeb8d0bc10a4fb5c130664ad387c4794b03aa3acb2d3e27b15bc67f0437062b32011fa1217babf452db965396bafd8a2ef1d1ec0b307a53ba6cd5b4537"
}