<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:2012-11-26&#xA;📝 Original message:On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote:&#xA;&gt; Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a&#xA;&gt; payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Now I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,&#xA;&gt; but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn&#39;t mind it if&#xA;&gt; my identity and those of my transactions were &#34;known&#34; and associated&#xA;&gt; both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions&#xA;&gt; (which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is&#xA;&gt; important, at least for the merchant.&#xA;&#xA;Anonymity isn&#39;t a feature we claim to have, nor a goal of the project for the &#xA;most part. Using a single Bitcoin address has many problems besides non-&#xA;anonymity: your customers are denied basic privacy and there is no good way to &#xA;guarantee the user who says he paid you really did (since transaction ids are &#xA;public record, anyone can claim they sent it).&#xA;&#xA;In short, it is for the most part considered a rule to always use a unique &#xA;address per transaction or at least per customer.&#xA;&#xA;Luke</html></oembed>