Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-06-16 📝 Original message:> > Come to think of it, ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-06-16
📝 Original message:>
> Come to think of it, is the payment protocol really the place to put this
> instant provider signature
>
Yes it's the right place. The original attempt at this concept was in fact
called *green addresses* and the idea was you could identify a spend from a
trusted wallet by checking which keys were being used to sign. But the
problem is, lack of privacy. Everyone can see what wallet provider you use.
Also it'd be inefficient to have in the chain. There's no reason for the
extra signatures to be there: double spend risk is something only the
recipient cares about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140616/6128d254/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:>
> Come to think of it, is the payment protocol really the place to put this
> instant provider signature
>
Yes it's the right place. The original attempt at this concept was in fact
called *green addresses* and the idea was you could identify a spend from a
trusted wallet by checking which keys were being used to sign. But the
problem is, lack of privacy. Everyone can see what wallet provider you use.
Also it'd be inefficient to have in the chain. There's no reason for the
extra signatures to be there: double spend risk is something only the
recipient cares about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140616/6128d254/attachment.html>;