<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1dtr22xd42nv07un2xq0rmtkqkjylgsmexau0anxxafa9xmmn2ncshu7wrs</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2013-11-14&#xA;📝 Original message:On Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:11:26 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote:&#xA;&gt; On 11/14/13 3:01 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:&#xA;&gt; &gt; I think we all know the problems with the term &#34;address&#34;. People&#xA;&gt; &gt; naturally compare it to postal addresses, email addresses, etc,&#xA;&gt; &gt; which operate fundamentally different. I suggest that we switch to&#xA;&gt; &gt; using &#34;invoice id&#34; to refer to what is now known as addresses, as&#xA;&gt; &gt; that seems to get the more natural understanding to people. On the&#xA;&gt; &gt; other hand, with the advent of the payment protocol, perhaps&#xA;&gt; &gt; address/invoice id use will die out soon?&#xA;&gt; &gt; &#xA;&gt; &gt; Thoughts?&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &#34;key id&#34; (thanks sipa).&#xA;&#xA;To be clear, I wasn&#39;t suggesting renaming scriptPubKey, which sipa was talking &#xA;about with &#34;key id&#34;; just the destination-for-transaction presented to&#xA;end-users.</html></oembed>