<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-01-18&#xA;📝 Original message:On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Jeremy Spilman &lt;jeremy at taplink.co&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; In the case where payment is being sent only to Q1, and Q2 is for discovery only, perhaps we could use a 160-bit curve for d2/Q2 and e/P resulting in 20 byte vs 32 bytes in the OP_RETURN, and of course faster multiplication.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 80-bits of security I assume still greatly exceeds the actual level of privacy you get with the overall solution, and since Q2 is never protecting actual funds...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; But if it&#39;s a &#34;real weakening&#34; of the privacy then definitely not worth it, and even the added complexity of another curve seems possibly not worth it...&#xA;&#xA;Well super-fast hand optimized code for (your choice of) 160 bit curve&#xA;may not ever exist, making it slower in practice. Plus the extra code&#xA;to carry around even if it does exist…</html></oembed>