From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3XEf-00050Q-1s for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:38:49 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f52.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W3XEe-0007IK-An for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:38:49 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c6so1873152lan.11 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.73.180 with SMTP id m20mr10294lbv.68.1389818321510; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.198.65 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 12:38:41 -0800 (PST) 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 12:38:41 -0800 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Ben Davenport Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1W3XEe-0007IK-An Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" 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: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:38:49 -0000 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-keys. "Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ness)