rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-09-27 📝 Original message:On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Re-use of old addresses is a major problem, not only for privacy, but also > operationally: services like exchanges frequently have problems with users > sending funds to addresses whose private keys have been lost or stolen; there When Pieter and I were working on Bech32 we specifically designed for error correcting codes that had good performance for longer lengths than we technically needed specifically to incorporate things like dates and explicit amounts. (explicit amounts so that typos and bit flips in amounts displayed or in memory couldn't result in sending the wrong amount) But we also thought that also adding those features at the same time would retard adoption-- both due to debating over the encodings and because handling would result in different software requirements and layering, so you couldn't just drop them in. Doubly unfortunately, people have even deployed BIP173 already (prior to it even having much peer review or being adopted by its own authors), so I think a rethink now wouldn't be timely (I mean as a replacement to BIP173 rather than an additional format). :( But I do support the idea. One thing to keep in mind is that address format linked fields are most efficient if they're multiples of 5 bits. Perhaps use 1 bit to indicate an embedded amount and 19 bits of 1 day precision, resulting in a 1435 year span. Keep in mind that high precision of the expiration times is asking the sender to have a higher precision of idea of the time, date only is kinda nice. I think shorter expiration times are unlikely to be useful due to clock skew-- you can't assume a signer has any access to the Bitcoin network at all.