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 <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> 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?
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)