{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1j66aek8wm7jq8vaffs2l8w43evyywd4q7tcnqyge6xqezz0vcpks7jm42m","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1j66aek8wm7jq8vaffs2l8w43evyywd4q7tcnqyge6xqezz0vcpks7jm42m","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-01-17\n📝 Original message:On 01/16/2014 01:28 PM, Peter Todd wrote:\n\n\u003e I'm very against the name \"reusable addresses\" and strongly belive we\n\u003e should stick with the name stealth addresses.\n\nI agree wholeheartedly against using \"reusable address\".  I personally\nam fine with \"stealth address\", but can see where there might be a\nnegative connotation.\n\nMight I suggest \"master address\", which is neutral in connotation, but\nindicates both that it is fixed and that payment addresses are generated\nas needed from it.\n\nBut please, no \"reusable address.\"\n\n-- \nJohnathan Corgan, Corgan Labs\nSDR Training and Development Services\nhttp://corganlabs.com\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: johnathan.vcf\nType: text/x-vcard\nSize: 334 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140116/14d333f0/attachment.vcf\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 230 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140116/14d333f0/attachment.sig\u003e"}