Love what's happening here, and how quickly things are moving, from initial concept, to first implementation, to first transaction.
But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address" to something more neutral?
Already, many people on Reddit and elsewhere are misinterpreting the purpose of such addresses, whether for tax evasion, criminal activity, or who knows what. Bitcoin already has plenty of political hurdles based sheerly on the technology. We don't need to make life harder for ourselves. Even forgetting about politics, the "stealth" association just seems to imply something secretive going on. Is a Fortune 500 company or worldwide charity going to want to use something called a "stealth address"?
I'd propose the alternate term "routing address".
- It's a descriptive, neutral term
- It accurately describes what the address is: it's a way to route payment to a recipient, but not the actual final address
- It can be analogized to a bank's routing number: It is uniquely, publicly and persistently tied to the receiving institution. The payor and payee knows when payment is made using it, but it's not publicly visible.
That's the best I've got, but here are some alternate terms in case that doesn't work:
- reusable public address
- permanent public address
- permanent address
- static address
I don't like these quite as much because they're not as clear. Normal addresses are all reusable, permanent and static -- they just _shouldn't_ be used that way.
Ben