Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26 📝 Original message:On Tuesday, November 27, ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26
📝 Original message:On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote:
> Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a
> payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)
>
> Now I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,
> but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if
> my identity and those of my transactions were "known" and associated
> both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions
> (which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is
> important, at least for the merchant.
Anonymity isn't a feature we claim to have, nor a goal of the project for the
most part. Using a single Bitcoin address has many problems besides non-
anonymity: your customers are denied basic privacy and there is no good way to
guarantee the user who says he paid you really did (since transaction ids are
public record, anyone can claim they sent it).
In short, it is for the most part considered a rule to always use a unique
address per transaction or at least per customer.
Luke
Published at
2023-06-07 10:40:19Event JSON
{
"id": "096dd7e80436d0a157051d1bb2c6d9348b5a8b27e4fb239b8d6cbcf76ae87096",
"pubkey": "6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1",
"created_at": 1686134419,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5f2400f8aa8a7067be3d080f096fd7cbfeecdd6e589c178b85b63a9338150a5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9691d4c319a5998cf1fa4a5933c9d71cbb4a62ce43fc4b582cb98f981bc4c277",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"308e0d1efb1707ac6b92cd0b19c304882b3919f4bd59336c4a718c159bdcf63b"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote:\n\u003e Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a\n\u003e payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)\n\u003e \n\u003e Now I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,\n\u003e but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if\n\u003e my identity and those of my transactions were \"known\" and associated\n\u003e both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions\n\u003e (which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is\n\u003e important, at least for the merchant.\n\nAnonymity isn't a feature we claim to have, nor a goal of the project for the \nmost part. Using a single Bitcoin address has many problems besides non-\nanonymity: your customers are denied basic privacy and there is no good way to \nguarantee the user who says he paid you really did (since transaction ids are \npublic record, anyone can claim they sent it).\n\nIn short, it is for the most part considered a rule to always use a unique \naddress per transaction or at least per customer.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "36dcab75e4a3a4666f088561081a04646b3c80b0f38f83218ec5fd5112e910cffd9598a3524f529412734e5d26ff30b9dfbd0bcad8a091988e679c673919db36"
}