š
Original date posted:2012-11-26
š Original message:On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> 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.
putting payment addresses in the DNS does not require that only a
single address be used. This is an assumption and a possible use case,
but there is no requirement that payment addresses must be 1:1
associated.
-rick
Rick Wesson [ARCHIVE] /
npub1xzā¦2925u
2023-06-07 10:40:22
in reply to nevent1qā¦2gqk
Author Public Key
npub1xz8q68hmzur6c6uje593nscy3q4njx05h4vnxmz2wxxptx7u7casl2925uPublished at
2023-06-07 10:40:22Event JSON
{
"id": "c253373271dcd513a744108a0ad877bb5c5f7c3a3506d2d87b83ead7e3e21a39",
"pubkey": "308e0d1efb1707ac6b92cd0b19c304882b3919f4bd59336c4a718c159bdcf63b",
"created_at": 1686134422,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5f2400f8aa8a7067be3d080f096fd7cbfeecdd6e589c178b85b63a9338150a5",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"096dd7e80436d0a157051d1bb2c6d9348b5a8b27e4fb239b8d6cbcf76ae87096",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2012-11-26\nš Original message:On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a\n\u003e\u003e payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Now I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,\n\u003e\u003e but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if\n\u003e\u003e my identity and those of my transactions were \"known\" and associated\n\u003e\u003e both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions\n\u003e\u003e (which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is\n\u003e\u003e important, at least for the merchant.\n\u003e\n\u003e Anonymity isn't a feature we claim to have, nor a goal of the project for the\n\u003e most part. Using a single Bitcoin address has many problems besides non-\n\u003e anonymity: your customers are denied basic privacy and there is no good way to\n\u003e guarantee the user who says he paid you really did (since transaction ids are\n\u003e public record, anyone can claim they sent it).\n\u003e\n\u003e In short, it is for the most part considered a rule to always use a unique\n\u003e address per transaction or at least per customer.\n\nputting payment addresses in the DNS does not require that only a\nsingle address be used. This is an assumption and a possible use case,\nbut there is no requirement that payment addresses must be 1:1\nassociated.\n\n-rick",
"sig": "4a7760ddaad67416aea801800116048db19e8d8ec84399323fa549ff71bb4771333e9c64f42cbaef30b037e8fdf4e3698a6f3bbcdf322f35dd2beb70f651d1df"
}