Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Vh672-0001lv-FA for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:14:12 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Vh670-00063l-5J for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:14:12 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15F641080833; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:14:12 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:13:59 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.0; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201311142301.39550.luke@dashjr.org> <5285589E.10707@monetize.io> In-Reply-To: <5285589E.10707@monetize.io> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201311142314.00978.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1Vh670-00063l-5J Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc 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, 14 Nov 2013 23:14:12 -0000 On Thursday, November 14, 2013 11:11:26 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote: > "key id" (thanks sipa). > > I know it's a more technical term, but that is rather the point. It > was a fundamental error to call hashed-pubkeys "addresses" as people > either associate this with "account" or physical addresses, which also > rarely change. > > Security and privacy guarantees of the system are defeated when key > pairs are reused. We should ideally adopt terminology that lead people > to associations of ephemeral, temporary use. "key id" is at least > neutral in this regard. Can anyone think of something better? Keys are often reused, so not sure that conveys the single-use much better. Reason I suggested invoice id is because nobody wants to pay the same invoice twice. Luke