rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-01-17 📝 Original message:On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:15:40AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > I must say, this shed is mighty fine looking. It'd be a great place to > store our bikes. But, what colour should we paint it? I think we should paint it this colour: They had uncovered what seemed to be the side of a large coloured globule embedded in the substance. The colour, which resembled some of the bands in the meteor's strange spectrum, was almost impossible to describe; and it was only by analogy that they called it colour at all. Its texture was glossy, and upon tapping it appeared to promise both brittle ness and hollowness. One of the professors gave it a smart blow with a hammer, and it burst with a nervous little pop. Nothing was emitted, and all trace of the thing vanished with the puncturing. It left behind a hollow spherical space about three inches across, and all thought it probable that others would be discovered as the enclosing substance wasted away. I think it really gets to the core of my feelings about this naming discussion. > How about we split the difference and go with "privacy address"? As Peter > notes, that's what people actually like and want. The problem with stealth > is it's got strong connotations with American military hardware and perhaps > thieves sneaking around in the night: > > https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=stealth WOW! AWESOME KICK-ASS PICS! Come to think of it, I could have called it "incognito addresses" - a term nice enough that Google and Firefox use it in their browsers - but what's done is done and any further discussion about this is just going to confuse the public. Remember that in the long run all this stuff will be hidden behind payment protocols anyway, and users *won't even know* that under the hood a stealth address is being used, making the name just a technical detail. For now though, lets use the good PR and get some early adopters on board. However, the term 'incognito' probably would be a good one to use within wallet software itself to describe what it's doing when the user clicks the "I want my transactions to be private" setting - there are after all fundemental bandwidth-privacy trade-offs in the threat model supposed by both prefix and bloom filters. In this instance the term isn't going to go away. Anyway, back to work: For the actual address format I strongly think we need to ensure that it can be upgrading in a backwards compatible way. This means we have to be able to add new fields - for instance if Gregory's ideas for different ways of doing the SPV-bait came to fruition. Given that "addresses" aren't something that should stay user-visible forever, thoughts on just making the actual data a protocol buffers object? Second question: Any performance figures yet on how efficient scanning the blockchain for matching transactions actually is? I'd like to get an idea soon for both desktop and smartphone wallets so we can figure out what kind of trade-offs users might be forced into in terms of prefix length. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 0000000000000001c9b372ed519ecc6d41c10b42a7457d1ca5acd560a535596b -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140117/588e739e/attachment.sig>