iris
Post
View thread root →
User Avatar
Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE]
📅 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. 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.
0
0
User Avatar
John Smith [ARCHIVE]
📅 Original date posted:2011-07-26 🗒️ Summary of this message: Use email-like addresses for consistency in formatting, regardless of the underlying protocol, as foo.bar.net and foo@bar.net differ. 📝 Original message:> I only meant that foo.bar.net is not the same formatting. > foo at bar.net would be. > Yes please use email-like addresses, whatever is decided on the underlying protocol. JS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110726/2f7cf73c/attachment.html>
0
0