<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgyd</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2014-01-13&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt;&#xA;&gt; On further reflection, I&#39;m not sure I understand this use case of the&#xA;&gt; payment protocol.  Since a PaymentRequest currently contains the&#xA;&gt; Outputs that specify the addresses to send to, reusing a&#xA;&gt; PaymentRequest like this without using stealth addresses implies&#xA;&gt; address reuse.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Yes indeed ...... which is why we&#39;re talking about extending the protocol&#xA;(in a future version! the first version isn&#39;t even out yet!).&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140113/21032b84/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>