Post
📅 Original date posted:2014-01-13 📝 Original message:rOn Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 08:57:33PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > > > > On further reflection, I'm not sure I understand this use case of the > > payment protocol. Since a PaymentRequest currently contains the > > Outputs that specify the addresses to send to, reusing a > > PaymentRequest like this without using stealth addresses implies > > address reuse. > > > Yes indeed ...... which is why we're talking about extending the protocol > (in a future version! the first version isn't even out yet!). Yes, sorry, I miscontrued the thread here and now see that your message was exactly talking about using stealth addresses within the payment protocol. Sorry for the confusion. roy
0
📅 Original date posted:2014-01-13 📝 Original message:On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 01:52:25AM -0800, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > > No, please. Make it easy for non-geeks, extend the payment protocol, or > > we'll spend the next two years writing code that tries to ignore linebreaks > > and spaces and changing <input> elements in HTML forms to <textarea> .... > > However, if you're able to use the payment protocol then you probably > don't need stealth addresses to prevent reuse. I definitely think this is a case that should be addressed better than at present. To consider a concrete use case, imagine I wish to be able to give my friends and acquaintances a paper business card with a QR code on it, that they can use to make payments to me. I don't own a domain or any kind of X.509 certificate and I don't run an HTTP server. I don't feel comfortable with a solution that requires me to trust a third party to complete the payments. At the moment, I can give them a business card with a Bitcoin address. Being able to give out a business card with a stealth address would be a major advance. roy
0