{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1trckpcxmceskq4cykxgwxm63n8ugrjrpu5mk83c90e4upsf7d9gqf0f95j","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1trckpcxmceskq4cykxgwxm63n8ugrjrpu5mk83c90e4upsf7d9gqf0f95j","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-01-15\n📝 Original message:How about just calling them 'type S addresses'?\n\nNot sure any other name will in reality convey much more meaning than\nthat.\n\nOn Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 06:07:28PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e \"Routing address\" is pretty good too.  Unsure whether the synergy and\n\u003e familiarity with bank routing numbers improves the situation, or\n\u003e not...\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Roy Badami \u003croy at gnomon.org.uk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:44:17PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \"static address\" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intended\n\u003e \u003e\u003e use/direction.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e ...as opposed to an address configured by DHCP?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e More seriously, I don't think a typical user will understand anything from\n\u003e \u003e the phrase \"static address\".  But it is a neutral name, and it is shorter\n\u003e \u003e than \"address-of-a-type-for-which-reuse-is-not-deprecated\". :-)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e -roy\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e Jeff Garzik\n\u003e Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist\n\u003e BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/\n\u003e"}