From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:31:16 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.5.4-gentoo; KDE/4.8.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <CABsx9T0PsGLEAWRCjEDDFWQrb+DnJWQZ7mFLaZewAEX6vD1eHw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8xBpe6x_aB_-Q5VLh164eoqqqwWBa1sy=UE-0u=jAD2+xTXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLttwSdjYUm2zFAQ4XczEaoG29u-Nq8gjhsn-rjG1yWzFVQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ1JLttwSdjYUm2zFAQ4XczEaoG29u-Nq8gjhsn-rjG1yWzFVQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201211270031.18080.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Proposal:
	Invoices/Payments/Receipts
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 12:02:42 AM Rick Wesson wrote:
> Another nifty thing is that it can associate a cert to a domain and a
> payment address, if one were to put said address in the DNS :)
> 
> Now I am sure the majority of the bitcoin user-base desires anonymity,
> but as a merchant I would like to be knowable and wouldn't mind it if
> my identity and those of my transactions were "known" and associated
> both with my domains and x.509 cert. In most commercial transactions
> (which include many of those that leverage invoices) identity is
> important, at least for the merchant.

Anonymity isn't a feature we claim to have, nor a goal of the project for the 
most part. Using a single Bitcoin address has many problems besides non-
anonymity: your customers are denied basic privacy and there is no good way to 
guarantee the user who says he paid you really did (since transaction ids are 
public record, anyone can claim they sent it).

In short, it is for the most part considered a rule to always use a unique 
address per transaction or at least per customer.

Luke