📅 Original date posted:2015-03-25
📝 Original message:On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> address = 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366
> Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply
> include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after
> that time.
Is this assuming payment protocol? A major benefit of address
expiration, if it works, would be that it works without requiring
payment protocol.
> If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your
> target and send anyways.
Are you suggesting there is no implementation of address expiration that
wouldn't allow the string to be trivially changed by the sender?
>> Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address
> Requires a unprunable verification state.
I don't understand, explanation would be appreciated.
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 15:32:13
in reply to nevent1q…94cd
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjySeen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 15:32:13Event JSON
{
"id": "2644a0d19e003763164b0574325a66f63855b05e2c4b549d64865ba16c3d5ce7",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686151933,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"13ba2dac7eec5154e8f99682c168a8cede79e5ef5e0b1fe726762657ed73749d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1b642d0eb5e8f81aed88d956f56c151b23dfbd8fe43ee454e8ddf8e6db8fb2b7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-03-25\n📝 Original message:On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e address = 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366\n\u003e Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply\n\u003e include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after\n\u003e that time.\n\nIs this assuming payment protocol? A major benefit of address\nexpiration, if it works, would be that it works without requiring\npayment protocol. \n\n\u003e If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your\n\u003e target and send anyways.\n\nAre you suggesting there is no implementation of address expiration that\nwouldn't allow the string to be trivially changed by the sender?\n\n\n\u003e\u003e Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address\n\u003e Requires a unprunable verification state.\n\nI don't understand, explanation would be appreciated.",
"sig": "1bb9be5f1a48118e4803c63ad2aaf09a7c13cceb84b1c896750fec3c6aea47b535c253163f662f85bee283aad3d6cd0d05640da1de3cde5fd94552f73c30a36e"
}