Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16 📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:26:07AM -0700, odinn wrote:
> This is very well done.
>
> Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63?
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083961.0
>
> I have no response from Peter Todd back on it other than "my time is
> better spent focusing on more fundemental issues" and "I've also got
> no-one interested in funding stealth address development right now,"
> when several people (myself included) offered to send donations to see
> the BIP (63) advance, no donation address was posted, so... waiting
> for him to act on that.
Sorry, but I'm looking at the huge amount of work that I'll likely have
responding to the blocksize issue, so I think I'm inclined to shelve
work on BIP63 for now.
Feel free to take it up; a (>=2)-part standard describing the resuable
codes aspect, and separately how the ephemeral key is transmitted to the
recipient makes sense to me.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150616/534697e6/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:26:07AM -0700, odinn wrote:
> This is very well done.
>
> Have you seen this discussion that I started regarding BIP 63?
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083961.0
>
> I have no response from Peter Todd back on it other than "my time is
> better spent focusing on more fundemental issues" and "I've also got
> no-one interested in funding stealth address development right now,"
> when several people (myself included) offered to send donations to see
> the BIP (63) advance, no donation address was posted, so... waiting
> for him to act on that.
Sorry, but I'm looking at the huge amount of work that I'll likely have
responding to the blocksize issue, so I think I'm inclined to shelve
work on BIP63 for now.
Feel free to take it up; a (>=2)-part standard describing the resuable
codes aspect, and separately how the ephemeral key is transmitted to the
recipient makes sense to me.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150616/534697e6/attachment.sig>;