Peter I agree with you about "reusable addresses", but aren't we also trying to get away from the word "address" entirely? How about calling it a "payment key" or "reusable payment key" instead? using "stealth" is just asking for bad press imo. On 16 January 2014 21:28, Peter Todd wrote: > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:05:27PM -0800, 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'm very against the name "reusable addresses" and strongly belive we > should stick with the name stealth addresses. > > You gotta look at it from the perspective of a user; lets take standard > pay-to-pubkey-hash addresses: I can tell my wallet to pay one as many > times as I want and everything works just great. I also can enter the > address on blockchain.info's search box, and every transaction related > to the address, and the balance of it, pops up immediately. > > What is that telling me? A: Addresses starting with "1" are reusable. B: > Transactions associated with them appear to be public knowledge. > > Now I upgrade my wallet software and it says I now have a "reusable" > address. My reaction is "Huh? Normal addresses are reusable, what's > special about this weird reusable address thing that my buddy Bob's > wallet software couldn't pay." I might even try to enter in a "reusable" > address in blockchain.info, which won't work, and I'll just figure > "must be some new unsupported thing" and move on with my life. > > On the other hand, suppose my wallet says I now have "stealth address" > support. I'm going to think "Huh, stealth? I guess that means privacy > right? I like privacy." If I try searching for a stealth address on > blockchain.info, when it doesn't work I might think twig on "Oh right! > It said stealth addresses are private, so maybe the transactions are > hidden?" I might also think "Maybe this is like stealth/incognito mode > in my browser? So like, there's no history being kept for others to > see?" Regardless, I'm going to be thinking "well I hear scary stuff > about Bitcoin privacy, and this stealth thing sounds like it's gonna > help, so I should learn more about that" > > Finally keep in mind that stealth addresses have had a tonne of very > fast, and very wide reaching PR. The name is in the public conciousness > already, and trying to change it now just because of vague bad > associations is going to throw away the momentum of that good PR and > slow down adoption. Last night I was at the Toronto Bitcoin Meetup and I > based on conversations there with people there, technical and > non-technical, almost everyone had heard about them and almost everyone > seemed to understand the basic idea of why they were a good thing. That > just wouldn't have happened with a name that tried to hide what stealth > addresses were for, and by changing the name now we risk people not > making the connection when wallet software gets upgraded to support > them. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 0000000000000001b0e0ae7ef97681ad77188030b6c791aef304947e6f524740 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > >