Name for payment recipient identifiers

The five-minute read

One action, walked through

1. Open BIP 179 and read the status line before the examples.
2. Write down the rule in one sentence. A fair version of that sentence is: A new term for 'address' Bitcoin addresses are intended to be only used '''once''' and you should generate a new one for every new incoming payment.
3. Name the object that changes: Name for payment recipient identifiers.
4. Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

The argument, unpacked

What has to be true

• You are implementing BIP 179 at the status the text itself states: Complete.
• The object that has to change is Name for payment recipient identifiers. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.
• Status in the header is not adoption.

What happened after the paper

The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it. Later documents can narrow, replace, or ignore this one. Cite the number you mean.

What to check before you use the idea

• What must an implementation of Name for payment recipient identifiers accept, and what may it ignore?
• Is this consensus, peer policy, or an application interface?
• Which names does the text pin down: Name for payment recipient identifiers?

Terms

BIP 179

The public text titled Name for payment recipient identifiers.

Complete

The document's own label for how finished the text is. It is not a market fact.

The problem the paper names

An interface that is only a name in a repository will be re-implemented differently by every team, which is how shared contracts break.

What the design proposes

• A new term for 'address' Bitcoin addresses are intended to be only used '''once''' and you should generate a new one for every new incoming payment.
• The term 'address' however indicates consistency because nearly everything on the internet or the offline world with the term 'address' is something that rarely or even never changes (postal address, email address, IP addresses (depends heavily on the provider), etc.) The motivation for this BIP is to change the term address to something that indicates that the address is connected to a single transaction.
• The new term is: ''Bitcoin'' '''Invoice''' ''Address'' The ''Bitcoin'' and ''Address'' parts are optional.

How the mechanism is specified

• Taken from the specification, the next constraint is: The term 'address' however indicates consistency because nearly everything on the internet or the offline world with the term 'address' is something that rarely or even never changes (postal address, email address, IP addresses (depends heavily on the provider), etc.) The motivation for this BIP is to change the term address to something that indicates that the address is connected to a single transaction.
• Locate Name for payment recipient identifiers in BIP 179 and apply it to one transaction or call.
• Then check the failure the class of rule always has: a node that did not upgrade, a reverted call, a replayed signature, or a peer that does not speak the message.

What this page does not treat as proven

• This document does not set a fee, a valuation, or a security proof.
• Status in the header is not adoption.
• The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

Why a venture studio still reads it

Use BIP 179 when a pitch says 'Name for payment recipient identifiers' without saying whether the rule is consensus, policy, or an interface. The number is the citation. The pitch is not.