📅 Original date posted:2014-01-15
📝 Original message:Might I propose "reusable address".
I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so
encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs 'reusable'.
It definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive adoption. The
feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.
I think it meets all the criteria required:
- Communication between parties is a single message from the payee,
which may be public
- Multiple payments to the same address are not publicly linkable on the
blockchain
- The payee has explicitly designated they expect to receive more than
one payment at that address
- Payer can publicly prove they made a payment to the reusable address
by revealing a secret
I have high hopes for this feature. The war *against* address reuse may
soon be a distant memory.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:44:17 -0800, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote:
> "static address" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intended
> use/direction.
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport
>> <bendavenport at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address" to
>>> something more neutral?
>>
>> ACK. Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealth is a
>> little cringe-worthy.
>>
>> "Private address" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys.
>>
>> "Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve
>> awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140115/8d3a6dc5/attachment.html>;
Jeremy Spilman [ARCHIVE] /
npub10e…jc727
2023-06-07 15:11:43
in reply to nevent1q…zdce
Author Public Key
npub10etkvm8l0jr0jsgdx02dxnhnu5g989dnca90guj5rklwkaplnh3sgjc727Published at
2023-06-07 15:11:43Event JSON
{
"id": "f77a92b88473e1c70e07421c28d203aa519b1fdb79e9c295a3381c4184f6f4e7",
"pubkey": "7e57666cff7c86f9410d33d4d34ef3e5105395b3c74af472541dbeeb743f9de3",
"created_at": 1686150703,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b79d8c7bec3dc6952db91cc68d0510d9897c37dcf58a24d8e2f4288fe42525c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"cea8aff441a5cb563a86a02923d98ec7cb65e274feab2b0499d7ef8178cf42b0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"58f160e0dbc661605704b190e36f5199f881c861e53763c7057e6bc0c13e6950"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-15\n📝 Original message:Might I propose \"reusable address\".\n\nI think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so \nencourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs 'reusable'.\n\nIt definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive adoption. The \nfeature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.\n\nI think it meets all the criteria required:\n\n - Communication between parties is a single message from the payee, \nwhich may be public\n - Multiple payments to the same address are not publicly linkable on the \nblockchain\n - The payee has explicitly designated they expect to receive more than \none payment at that address\n - Payer can publicly prove they made a payment to the reusable address \nby revealing a secret\n\nI have high hopes for this feature. The war *against* address reuse may \nsoon be a distant memory.\n\nOn Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:44:17 -0800, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \"static address\" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intended \n\u003e use/direction.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003e \n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport \n\u003e\u003e \u003cbendavenport at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e But may I suggest we consider changing the name \"stealth address\" to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e something more neutral?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ACK. Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealth is a\n\u003e\u003e little cringe-worthy.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"Private address\" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"Static address\" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve\n\u003e\u003e awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness)\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140115/8d3a6dc5/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5eefbff205a6f933046e791933d278fd5a072463c5f9b57e8368970e5a6aaea745fc94c85604e0767b43d7ce622aefb7cb695734de49b4c9abc2a393d0ee79ae"
}