rich1.0npub10etkvm8l0jr0jsgdx02dxnhnu5g989dnca90guj5rklwkaplnh3sgjc727https://nostr.ae/npub10etkvm8l0jr0jsgdx02dxnhnu5g989dnca90guj5rklwkaplnh3sgjc727njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-01-15 📝 Original message:Might I propose "reusable address". I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs 'reusable'. It definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive adoption. The feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted. I think it meets all the criteria required: - Communication between parties is a single message from the payee, which may be public - Multiple payments to the same address are not publicly linkable on the blockchain - The payee has explicitly designated they expect to receive more than one payment at that address - Payer can publicly prove they made a payment to the reusable address by revealing a secret I have high hopes for this feature. The war *against* address reuse may soon be a distant memory. On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:44:17 -0800, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik at bitpay.com> wrote: > "static address" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intended > use/direction. > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport >> <bendavenport at gmail.com> wrote: >>> But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address" to >>> something more neutral? >> >> ACK. Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealth is a >> little cringe-worthy. >> >> "Private address" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys. >> >> "Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve >> awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140115/8d3a6dc5/attachment.html>