On 22/10/15 00:53, Luke Dashjr wrote: > Sorry for the late review. I'm concerned with the "notification address" > requirement, which entails address reuse and blockchain spam. Since it > entails > address reuse, the recipient is forced to either leave them unspent forever > (bloating the UTXO set), or spend it which potentially compromises the > private > key, and (combined with the payment code) possibly as much as the entire > wallet. > > Instead, I suggest making it a single zero-value OP_RETURN output with two > pushes: 1) a hash of the recipient's payment code, and 2) the encrypted > payment code. This can be searched with standard bloom filters, or indexed > with whatever other optimised algorithms are desired. At the same time, it > never uses any space in the UTXO set, and never needs to be > spent/mixed/dusted.
The notification transaction portion is my least-favorite portion of the spec, but I don't see any alternatives that provide an unambiguous improvement, including your suggestion. One of the most highly-weighted goals of this proposal is to be usable on as many mobile/light wallets as possible. I know for sure that all existing platforms for balance querying index by address. Support for bloom filters or other querying methods is less comprehensive, meaning the set of wallets that can support payment codes would be smaller.
0xEAD9E623.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
