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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3aSk-0003zH-3V for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:05:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of taplink.co designates 50.117.27.232 as permitted sender) client-ip=50.117.27.232; envelope-from=jeremy@taplink.co; helo=mail.taplink.co; Received: from mail.taplink.co ([50.117.27.232]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with smtp (Exim 4.76) id 1W3aSj-0001CD-9W for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:05:34 +0000 Received: from laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([192.168.168.135]) by mail.taplink.co ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:14:42 -0800 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----------mQZk93yAj62F69c4eXXgLP To: "Gregory Maxwell" , "Jeff Garzik" References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin> <20140110102037.GB25749@savin> <20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 16:05:27 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Jeremy Spilman" Organization: TapLink Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) oclient: 192.168.168.135#jeremy@taplink.co#465 X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) 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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1W3aSj-0001CD-9W 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: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:05:34 -0000 ------------mQZk93yAj62F69c4eXXgLP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 than one payment at that address - Payer can publicly prove they made a payment to the reusable address 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 intended > 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-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) ------------mQZk93yAj62F69c4eXXgLP Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary=----------mQZk93yAj62F69emOTdz9o ------------mQZk93yAj62F69emOTdz9o Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Might I propose "reusable address".

I think that descr= ibes 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 adopti= on. The feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.

I think i= t meets all the criteria required:

  - Com= munication 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 than one payment at t= hat address
  - Payer can publicly prove they made a paym= ent to the reusable address by revealing a secret

I have high hopes for this feature. The war *against* address reuse m= ay soon be a distant memory.

On Wed, 15 Jan 201= 4 12:44:17 -0800, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com> wrote:
"static address" seems like a reas= onable attempt at describing intended use/direction.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gma= xwell@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014= at 12:22 PM, Ben Davenport <bendavenport@gmail.com> wrote:
> But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address" t= o
> something more neutral?

ACK.  Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think stealt= h is a
little cringe-worthy.

"Private address" would be fine if not for confusion with private-keys.<= br>
"Static address" is perhaps the best in my view. (also helps improve
=  awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-use-ne= ss)
------------mQZk93yAj62F69emOTdz9o-- ------------mQZk93yAj62F69c4eXXgLP--