rich1.0npub1xz8q68hmzur6c6uje593nscy3q4njx05h4vnxmz2wxxptx7u7casl2925uhttps://nostr.ae/npub1xz8q68hmzur6c6uje593nscy3q4njx05h4vnxmz2wxxptx7u7casl2925unjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2012-11-26 📝 Original message:On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Luke-Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote: >> Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a >> payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :) >> >> Now I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity, >> but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if >> my identity and those of my transactions were "known" and associated >> both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions >> (which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is >> important, at least for the merchant. > > Anonymity isn't a feature we claim to have, nor a goal of the project for the > most part. Using a single Bitcoin address has many problems besides non- > anonymity: your customers are denied basic privacy and there is no good way to > guarantee the user who says he paid you really did (since transaction ids are > public record, anyone can claim they sent it). > > In short, it is for the most part considered a rule to always use a unique > address per transaction or at least per customer. putting payment addresses in the DNS does not require that only a single address be used. This is an assumption and a possible use case, but there is no requirement that payment addresses must be 1:1 associated. -rick