{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-01-17\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:15:40AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e I must say, this shed is mighty fine looking. It'd be a great place to\n\u003e store our bikes. But, what colour should we paint it?\n\nI think we should paint it this colour:\n\n    They had uncovered what seemed to be the side of a large coloured\n    globule embedded in the substance. The colour, which resembled some\n    of the bands in the meteor's strange spectrum, was almost impossible\n    to describe; and it was only by analogy that they called it colour\n    at all.  Its texture was glossy, and upon tapping it appeared to\n    promise both brittle ness and hollowness. One of the professors gave\n    it a smart blow with a hammer, and it burst with a nervous little\n    pop. Nothing was emitted, and all trace of the thing vanished with\n    the puncturing. It left behind a hollow spherical space about three\n    inches across, and all thought it probable that others would be\n    discovered as the enclosing substance wasted away.\n\nI think it really gets to the core of my feelings about this naming\ndiscussion.\n\n\u003e How about we split the difference and go with \"privacy address\"? As Peter\n\u003e notes, that's what people actually like and want. The problem with stealth\n\u003e is it's got strong connotations with American military hardware and perhaps\n\u003e thieves sneaking around in the night:\n\u003e \n\u003e    https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch\u0026q=stealth\n\nWOW! AWESOME KICK-ASS PICS!\n\nCome to think of it, I could have called it \"incognito addresses\" - a\nterm nice enough that Google and Firefox use it in their browsers - but\nwhat's done is done and any further discussion about this is just going\nto confuse the public. Remember that in the long run all this stuff will\nbe hidden behind payment protocols anyway, and users *won't even know*\nthat under the hood a stealth address is being used, making the name\njust a technical detail. For now though, lets use the good PR and get\nsome early adopters on board.\n\nHowever, the term 'incognito' probably would be a good one to use within\nwallet software itself to describe what it's doing when the user clicks\nthe \"I want my transactions to be private\" setting - there are after all\nfundemental bandwidth-privacy trade-offs in the threat model supposed by\nboth prefix and bloom filters. In this instance the term isn't going to\ngo away.\n\n\nAnyway, back to work: For the actual address format I strongly think we\nneed to ensure that it can be upgrading in a backwards compatible way.\nThis means we have to be able to add new fields - for instance if\nGregory's ideas for different ways of doing the SPV-bait came to\nfruition. Given that \"addresses\" aren't something that should stay\nuser-visible forever, thoughts on just making the actual data a protocol\nbuffers object?\n\nSecond question: Any performance figures yet on how efficient scanning\nthe blockchain for matching transactions actually is? I'd like to get an\nidea soon for both desktop and smartphone wallets so we can figure out\nwhat kind of trade-offs users might be forced into in terms of prefix\nlength.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000001c9b372ed519ecc6d41c10b42a7457d1ca5acd560a535596b\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140117/588e739e/attachment.sig\u003e"}