Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-03-25 📝 Original message:On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-03-25
📝 Original message:On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> address = 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366
> Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply
> include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after
> that time.
Is this assuming payment protocol? A major benefit of address
expiration, if it works, would be that it works without requiring
payment protocol.
> If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your
> target and send anyways.
Are you suggesting there is no implementation of address expiration that
wouldn't allow the string to be trivially changed by the sender?
>> Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address
> Requires a unprunable verification state.
I don't understand, explanation would be appreciated.
📝 Original message:On 3/25/2015 9:34 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> address = 4HB5ld0FzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v_349366
> Assuming the sender is not an uncooperative idiot, you can simply
> include expiration information and the sender can refuse to send after
> that time.
Is this assuming payment protocol? A major benefit of address
expiration, if it works, would be that it works without requiring
payment protocol.
> If the sender is an uncooperative idiot, they can always change your
> target and send anyways.
Are you suggesting there is no implementation of address expiration that
wouldn't allow the string to be trivially changed by the sender?
>> Block containing tx invalid if a prior confirmed tx has paid address
> Requires a unprunable verification state.
I don't understand, explanation would be appreciated.