From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3bZH-00072B-Uv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:16:23 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of riseup.net designates 198.252.153.129 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net; Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1W3bZF-0002Ij-OQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:16:23 +0000 Received: from fulvetta.riseup.net (fulvetta-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30120528C3 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:16:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: odinn.cyberguerrilla@fulvetta.riseup.net) with ESMTPSA id C9682436 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user odinn.cyberguerrilla) by fulvetta.riseup.net with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:16:14 -0800 Message-ID: <9eaa4a24adabaebcd34a724926fdcea8.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin> <20140110102037.GB25749@savin> <20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:16:14 -0800 From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [198.252.153.129 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY Informational: message has unparseable relay lines X-Headers-End: 1W3bZF-0002Ij-OQ Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 01:16:24 -0000 Yes. Good idea(s). > 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 th= an > one payment at that address > - Payer can publicly prove they made a payment to the reusable addre= ss > 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 > wrote: >> "static address" seems like a reasonable attempt at describing intende= d >> use/direction. >> >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport >>> 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-key= s. >>> >>> "Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve >>> awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more >>> one-use-ness)--------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------- > CenturyLink Cloud: The Leader in Enterprise Cloud Services. > Learn Why More Businesses Are Choosing CenturyLink Cloud For > Critical Workloads, Development Environments & Everything In Between. > Get a Quote or Start a Free Trial Today. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=3D119420431&iu=3D/4140/os= tg.clktrk_______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >