Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3gPn-0006ud-0x for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:26:55 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.128.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.128.49; envelope-from=g.rowe.froot@gmail.com; helo=mail-qe0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-qe0-f49.google.com ([209.85.128.49]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1W3gPl-0003bD-A7 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:26:54 +0000 Received: by mail-qe0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w4so2103710qeb.22 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:26:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.31.75 with SMTP id e69mr5048442qge.76.1389853607444; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:26:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: g.rowe.froot@gmail.com Received: by 10.96.26.168 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:26:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20140106120338.GA14918@savin> <20140110102037.GB25749@savin> <20140113133746.GI38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20140114225321.GT38964@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:26:47 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: FqnvYIFo7oY83osW71EeBRMrjsE Message-ID: From: Gary Rowe To: Bitcoin Development List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a96ca8fc73604f010821e X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (g.rowe.froot[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1W3gPl-0003bD-A7 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 06:26:55 -0000 --001a113a96ca8fc73604f010821e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I like "reusable address". It is very clear what the intended purpose is and gives a subtle hint that other types of address should not be re-used. On 16 January 2014 00:44, Eric Martindale wrote: > One variation of this, "recycled address", might avert misconceptions that > the "re-use" is exclusive to one's own identity. > > > Eric Martindale, relentless maker. > http://www.ericmartindale.com > +1 (919) 374-2020 | *BitMessage: *BM-2cWCmYBpV64FRSJpHHKWi1Cfc9W52jydwe > *Note:* Beginning December 11th, 2013, I will only be intermittently > available via email, SMS, and BitMessage. As a courtesy, please leave a > detailed message so that I can respond in kind. Thanks! > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Jeremy Spilman wrote: > >> 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) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk >> _______________________________________________ >> Bitcoin-development mailing list >> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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=119420431&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > > --001a113a96ca8fc73604f010821e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I like "reusable address".=C2=A0

<= div>It is very clear what the intended purpose is and gives a subtle hint t= hat other types of address should not be re-used.



On 16 January 2014 00:44, Eric Martindal= e <eric@ericmartindale.com> wrote:
One variation of this, "recycled address", might= avert misconceptions that the "re-use" is exclusive to one's= own identity.


Eric Martindale, relen= tless maker.
Note:=C2=A0Beginnin= g December 11th, 2013, I will only be intermittently available via email, S= MS, and BitMessage. =C2=A0As a courtesy, please leave a detailed message so= that I can respond in kind. =C2=A0Thanks!


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 a= t 7:05 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co> wrote:
Might I propose "reusable address".

I think that= describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more so encourages walle= ts 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:

=C2=A0= - Communication between parties is a single message from the payee, which = may be public
=C2=A0 - Multiple payments to the same address are not publicly linkab= le on the blockchain
=C2=A0 - The payee has explicitly designated= they expect to receive more than one payment at that address
=C2= =A0 - 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* a= ddress 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 intended use/direction.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Ben D= avenport <be= ndavenport@gmail.com> wrote:
> But may I suggest we consider changing the name "stealth address&= quot; to
> something more neutral?

ACK. =C2=A0Regardless of the 'political' overtones, I think s= tealth 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 impr= ove
=C2=A0awareness that normal addresses are intended to be more one-us= e-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/gam= pad/clk?id=3D119420431&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
__________________= _____________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment



-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------
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/gam= pad/clk?id=3D119420431&iu=3D/4140/ostg.clktrk
__________________= _____________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment


--001a113a96ca8fc73604f010821e--