Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-07-26 🗒️ Summary of this message: Rick Wesson ...
📅 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.
http://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.
🗒️ 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.
http://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.