Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-03-26 📝 Original message:On 3/26/2015 1:42 PM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-03-26
📝 Original message:On 3/26/2015 1:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Which is why a simpler, safer, client enforced behavior is probably
> preferable. Someone who wants to go hack their client to make a
> payment that isn't according to the payee will have to live with the
> results, esp. as we can't prevent that in a strong sense.
I should have been clearer that the motivation for address expiration is
to reduce the rate of increase of the massive pile of bitcoin addresses
out there which have to be monitored forever for future payments. It
could make a significant dent if something like this worked, and were
used by default someday.
Address expiration is not an enhancement to the payment experience and
it doesn't stop sender from doing something weird. Hacking a new
address for the recipient would be just as weird as hacking their client
IMHO.
📝 Original message:On 3/26/2015 1:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Which is why a simpler, safer, client enforced behavior is probably
> preferable. Someone who wants to go hack their client to make a
> payment that isn't according to the payee will have to live with the
> results, esp. as we can't prevent that in a strong sense.
I should have been clearer that the motivation for address expiration is
to reduce the rate of increase of the massive pile of bitcoin addresses
out there which have to be monitored forever for future payments. It
could make a significant dent if something like this worked, and were
used by default someday.
Address expiration is not an enhancement to the payment experience and
it doesn't stop sender from doing something weird. Hacking a new
address for the recipient would be just as weird as hacking their client
IMHO.