📅 Original date posted:2014-01-16
📝 Original message:I like "reusable address".
It is very clear what the intended purpose is and gives a subtle hint that
other types of address should not be re-used.
On 16 January 2014 00:44, Eric Martindale <eric at ericmartindale.com> wrote:
> One variation of this, "recycled address", might avert misconceptions that
> the "re-use" is exclusive to one's own identity.
>
>
> Eric Martindale, relentless maker.
> http://www.ericmartindale.com
> +1 (919) 374-2020 | *BitMessage: *BM-2cWCmYBpV64FRSJpHHKWi1Cfc9W52jydwe
> *Note:* Beginning December 11th, 2013, I will only be intermittently
> available via email, SMS, and BitMessage. As a courtesy, please leave a
> detailed message so that I can respond in kind. Thanks!
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jeremy at taplink.co> wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
>> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
>> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
>> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.
> Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For
> Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between.
> Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.
>
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140116/73f3769a/attachment.html>;
Gary Rowe [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j8…wpach
2023-06-07 15:11:43
in reply to nevent1q…2kg0
Author Public Key
npub1j8mfekhmgtne6ptzxptudrcpwd6wtyxk64qdn3swy2nv46zuledskwpachPublished at
2023-06-07 15:11:43Event JSON
{
"id": "a02d9e7ef44bf593b7871dfe8504b8deff33afef34c6cd8ebcc7f8c263ea3dd7",
"pubkey": "91f69cdafb42e79d05623057c68f017374e590d6d540d9c60e22a6cae85cfe5b",
"created_at": 1686150703,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b79d8c7bec3dc6952db91cc68d0510d9897c37dcf58a24d8e2f4288fe42525c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"4d36f36a01dfca52de8029e17e31137cae2413e25c0ad627c811acc4fc7b0e72",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"092601597d30aa94c18773e5c3ebb3d83699778aa298e6d633db9e06da261ed7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-16\n📝 Original message:I like \"reusable address\".\n\nIt is very clear what the intended purpose is and gives a subtle hint that\nother types of address should not be re-used.\n\n\n\nOn 16 January 2014 00:44, Eric Martindale \u003ceric at ericmartindale.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e One variation of this, \"recycled address\", might avert misconceptions that\n\u003e the \"re-use\" is exclusive to one's own identity.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Eric Martindale, relentless maker.\n\u003e http://www.ericmartindale.com\n\u003e +1 (919) 374-2020 | *BitMessage: *BM-2cWCmYBpV64FRSJpHHKWi1Cfc9W52jydwe\n\u003e *Note:* Beginning December 11th, 2013, I will only be intermittently\n\u003e available via email, SMS, and BitMessage. As a courtesy, please leave a\n\u003e detailed message so that I can respond in kind. Thanks!\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Jeremy Spilman \u003cjeremy at taplink.co\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Might I propose \"reusable address\".\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so\n\u003e\u003e encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs 'reusable'.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive adoption.\n\u003e\u003e The feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I think it meets all the criteria required:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - Communication between parties is a single message from the payee,\n\u003e\u003e which may be public\n\u003e\u003e - Multiple payments to the same address are not publicly linkable on\n\u003e\u003e the blockchain\n\u003e\u003e - The payee has explicitly designated they expect to receive more than\n\u003e\u003e one payment at that address\n\u003e\u003e - Payer can publicly prove they made a payment to the reusable address\n\u003e\u003e by revealing a secret\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I have high hopes for this feature. The war *against* address reuse may\n\u003e\u003e soon be a distant memory.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:44:17 -0800, Jeff Garzik \u003cjgarzik at bitpay.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \"static address\" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intended\n\u003e\u003e use/direction.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgmaxwell at gmail.com\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport \u003cbendavenport at gmail.com\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e But may I suggest we consider changing the name \"stealth address\" to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \u003e something more neutral?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ACK. Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealth is a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e little cringe-worthy.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"Private address\" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"Static address\" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve\n\u003e\u003e\u003e awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\u003e CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.\n\u003e\u003e Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For\n\u003e\u003e Critical Workloads, Development Environments \u0026 Everything In Between.\n\u003e\u003e Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e ------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services.\n\u003e Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For\n\u003e Critical Workloads, Development Environments \u0026 Everything In Between.\n\u003e Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today.\n\u003e\n\u003e http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=119420431\u0026iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Bitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003e Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003e https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140116/73f3769a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "bde19e1dc9647584281f2af16d43fbd5f418d8d39e419797d6bb7d6e7ee7b00dc9371f8daae89900155457fbd1f1686055101fc4f785536f63a2c5dc1fab53fe"
}