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; 
Message-ID: <9eaa4a24adabaebcd34a724926fdcea8.squirrel@fulvetta.riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <op.w9q6jdsayldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin>
	<op.w9c5o7vgyldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
	<20140110102037.GB25749@savin>
	<op.w9kkxcityldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
	<CABsx9T2G=yqSUGr0+Ju5-z9P++uS20AwLC+c3DnFMHtcQjQK6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTz0TaGhym_35V3N2-vHVzU9BeuV8q+QJjwh5bg77FEZg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0huBWqgvQik9Yc26Tu4CwR0VSXcfC+qfzsZqvoU4VJGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CANEZrP1KAVhi_-cxCYe0rR9LUSYJ8MyW8=6eSJZ65FeY5ZJNuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
	<CANAnSg0tH_bK_19rsRRHOeZgrGYeWMhW89fXPyS4DQGmS4r_7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALimQCXgc0eXeOcqFGUaCpSF7gKEe87KzvLqHZwUysV3WyjjGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgShChAQryfUOBp60jB-zxn2tH986fu1HfT+LsNdBYnoYg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0P5r2+kxy7w8G=h=TAhdk1jUoW5UOiv-euo47uQY0u9ZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.w9q6jdsayldrnw@laptop-air.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:16:14 -0800
From: "Odinn Cyberguerrilla" <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.21
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Stealth Addresses
Precedence: list

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 <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
> 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 <gmaxwell@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" 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
>