{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 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"}