Pages:
Author

Topic: Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse! - page 8. (Read 51830 times)

sr. member
Activity: 303
Merit: 250
Should his miners change their payout addresses every single mined block?
They should use Bitcoin recurring invoices (BIP32), not addresses.

Can a miner use a BIP32 recurring invoice as an Eligius login right now?

If not, perhaps your patch rollout timing was ill-informed.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
I've argued with Luke before on this obsession of his, your never going to go mainstream with something that dose not give people DURABLE identities.  Disposable identities are never going to fly in mainstream commerce where law enforcement must be conducted.  Also you have the grandmother factor at work here, a users needs a durable identity to give to other people and they can barely handle the technical hurdles of BTC as it is now.  This kind of secrecy and techno-elitist obsession will always fail.
Maybe you can use grandma as a hostage against privacy preservation today, but there are projects in the works to make anonymous commerce just as safe (or safer) as non-anonymous commerce, in a grandmother-friendly way.

After that's done, law enforcement can shove their desire to spy on everyone and everything up their ass.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1033
I've argued with Luke before on this obsession of his, your never going to go mainstream with something that dose not give people DURABLE identities.

Address isn't supposed to be an identity. It is more like an invoice number.  Invoice numbers are not supposed to be durable, are they?
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
I've argued with Luke before on this obsession of his, your never going to go mainstream with something that dose not give people DURABLE identities.  Disposable identities are never going to fly in mainstream commerce where law enforcement must be conducted.
Bitcoin does not provide identities of any sort.
If you need identities, use PGP.

Also you have the grandmother factor at work here, ...
Payment protocol should make things easier.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1033
Thin wallets like Electrum and blockchain.info retrieve UTXOs from server, and cost for server is roughly proportional to number of addresses used, so address re-use improves efficiency. Are you against that?
Are you saying that address reuse makes the UTXO set smaller?

No. They ask server about each address they use. If client uses N addresses, there are N queries against server's database.
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 250
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
I've argued with Luke before on this obsession of his, your never going to go mainstream with something that dose not give people DURABLE identities.  Disposable identities are never going to fly in mainstream commerce where law enforcement must be conducted.  Also you have the grandmother factor at work here, a users needs a durable identity to give to other people and they can barely handle the technical hurdles of BTC as it is now.  This kind of secrecy and techno-elitist obsession will always fail.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
Thin wallets like Electrum and blockchain.info retrieve UTXOs from server, and cost for server is roughly proportional to number of addresses used, so address re-use improves efficiency. Are you against that?
Are you saying that address reuse makes the UTXO set smaller?
I think he's saying that these clients are missing bloom filter support, which has been standard for a while.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
So let me get this right: A mining pool operator implemented a change that, with (wider) acceptance, would delay payments to his own miners?
This isn't correct.
If a mining pool paid people more than once per block, there's something more subtle wrong...

Should his miners change their payout addresses every single mined block?
They should use Bitcoin recurring invoices (BIP32), not addresses.

BIP_32 is not in effect, so that argument is currently moot.
Bitcoin is still beta and incomplete.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
Thin wallets like Electrum and blockchain.info retrieve UTXOs from server, and cost for server is roughly proportional to number of addresses used, so address re-use improves efficiency. Are you against that?
Are you saying that address reuse makes the UTXO set smaller?
sr. member
Activity: 303
Merit: 250
 So let me get this right: A mining pool operator implemented a change that, with (wider) acceptance, would delay payments to his own miners? Should his miners change their payout addresses every single mined block?

BIP_32 is not in effect, so that argument is currently moot.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1033
Thin wallets like Electrum and blockchain.info retrieve UTXOs from server, and cost for server is roughly proportional to number of addresses used, so address re-use improves efficiency. Are you against that?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Apparently no restriction should be done before the clients supporting convenient solutions to avoid address reusing. Otherwise you are trying to kill BTC rather than helping. Please spend more efforts on clients instead of mining softwares. No project will succeed in going to mainstream try to piss off users just for pleasing some genious developers who think they have better vision of the future. BTC now is no longer the toy of developers as the early days. You are dealing with billions of people's money now.

This patch isn't designed to restrict, it is designed to discourage.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 523
Gavin A proposes adding API callbacks into the bitcoin URI so that retailers do not have to use unique addresses per customer, but using one address and be able to track which TXID belongs to which customer by use of the API callback.

Could you provide a link, please.
legendary
Activity: 882
Merit: 1000
Apparently no restriction should be done before the clients supporting convenient solutions to avoid address reusing. Otherwise you are trying to kill BTC rather than helping. Please spend more efforts on clients instead of mining softwares. No project will succeed in going to mainstream try to piss off users just for pleasing some genious developers who think they have better vision of the future.

BTC now is no longer the toy of developers as the early days. You are dealing with billions of people's money now. Remember even your decision is correct in the long term, it's side effect will do great harm if not being careful enough. Now it's too dangerous to do something like: just do it and let's see what will happen.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
What about donation addresses?

Address Chains, forthcoming in the new version of Bitcoin Qt.

Is it actually being implemented or one of those things that has been sidelined?

BIP list

No. 32

Status is "Accepted", Peter Wuille is the author, it constantly gets talked about as if it is happening, and the (likely) first hardware wallet to market is going to be implementing it. It might actually be the first wallet to implement it period, seeing as the new version of Qt client is currently incubating, no Release Candidates as of yet.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766

You're an idiot, don't do this!   - 59 (36.6%)
I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it.   - 14 (8.7%)
We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now.   - 19 (11.8%)
Great, it's about time!   - 23 (14.3%)
You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP!   - 35 (21.7%)
If it's from Luke, it can't be any good.   - 11 (6.8%)

I read the poll more along these lines. Opposed: 43.2% In favour with varying degrees of support: 56.5% Rounding 0.3%. There is a fair degree of support for this. We must also keep in mind the following


i coloured it because for instance
saying "i dont like this" 14 (8.7%) means literally i dont like this.. in other words NO
saying "we should have waited longer" 19 (11.8%) means literally i dont want this to be done yet.. in other words NOT YET

but both questions are worded to then subtly suggest they agree to implement it. these type of questions are called trick questions.

EG if i said "do you hate termites" and you chose
1) i dont like them, but i agree we to live along side them as they are living creatures

great using that answer, you have agreed to allow me to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to your house as you seem to be ok with it.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
the other thing to note is:

Gavin A proposes adding API callbacks into the bitcoin URI so that retailers do not have to use unique addresses per customer, but using one address and be able to track which TXID belongs to which customer by use of the API callback.

so we have Gavin A trying to reduce the need for unique addresses. and we have Luke Jr trying to increase the need for unique addresses.

can we find a room for the main dev's to go in and slug it out for a few matches as to something that can be agreed on that is best for the community..

donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
I.  Auction bidding.

This can be accomplished with a BIP32 address chain


Is this supported with blockchain.info or bitcoin-qt at this time?


No however I would strongly encourage you to advocate for them to update.
legendary
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1002
I.  Auction bidding.

This can be accomplished with a BIP32 address chain


Is this supported with blockchain.info or bitcoin-qt at this time?
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
I.  Auction bidding.

This can be accomplished with a BIP32 address chain

Quote
II.  Payouts of mining pool
I also don't see how to communicate with my shareholders to ask them for new payment addresses, as I don't know their identity.

Worst case scenario if you stop sending regular payments I am sure they will contact you. Smiley
In the future you could have them generate a BIP32 public key, put that PubKey in a message and sign the message with the existing address as a cryptographically secure way to transition.
Pages:
Jump to: