Rename DNS payment instructions to Human Bitcoin Address #1203
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for bitcoin-design-site ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
swedishfrenchpress
left a comment
swedishfrenchpress
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm, as long as there's consensus that BIP321 is ready to be communicated as a replacement for BIP21. It looks like there's precedent for this in the BIP itself, since it mentions that BIP21 was a replacement for BIP20.
Human Bitcoin Address sound and reads better than BIP-353: DNS Payment Instructions, that lgtm too.
They're functionally identical. There's one additional optional extension in 321, but mostly it just updates 21 to allow for things like segwit addresses (ha!) and describes how people already include lighting invoices/offers. |
|
Hm, I don't fully agree with this change. The title of the page itself is already "Human readable address". It's weird then to have a sub-section called "Human Bitcoin Address". Lightning Address and Paynyms have the same goal of being human-readable, so it's not clear why BIP-353 should have this unique title. The current title of "DNS Payment Instructions" is simply the name of the BIP. Technical, of course, but it is a technical document. Why not change the title of the page instead? |
|
We want to call it "Human Bitcoin Address" for the same reason we don't call "Lightning Address" LNURL-pay or "Paynyms" BIP 47. |
|
@GBKS it seems to me the proposed naming & architecture of this page makes sense: "Human Readable Addresses" is the generic/parent concept that is meaningful
"Human Bitcoin Address" can be best thought of as the lightly-branded name that we give to the BIP-353 DNS payments-instructions-based solution that is an alternative to "Lightning Address" |
|
I supposed it depends who the audience for that light branding for BIP-353? Feels more like something for the bitcoin builder ecosystem than end-users? I see roughly four audiences/areas:
Just thinking about Arké, having recently worked through the contacts and send flows, where lots of addresses appear. I don't think I would surface the term "Human bitcoin address" in the UI. But I am trying to see if we can get to a point where everything is just a "bitcoin address", and there's always on option to get more detail with a click (which then shows benefits/features and not technical stuff). Go for it if you feel strongly about it. |
This seems like a recipe for confusion. It signals clearly to end-consumers that these are somehow not interoperable, even though they are.
This seems even worse. The whole point of the B in front of the BIP 353 is to avoid people thinking that these and email are the same namespace. They are not, and highlighting that they're similar is gonna cause a lot of confusion. |
For email, people are OK with having Yahoo email addresses and Google/Gmail email addresses) and don't worry about interoperability. Why would it be problematic here? The page itself also describes this approach.
This was a speculative comment on what people might use colloquially. Like people will say iWatch, despite there never having been a product with that name (only Apple Watch, but if you search for iWatch on apple.com it will show Apple Watch results). IRL language is full of shortcuts that make sense in context, and I think there's a chance some people will just call this "bitcoin email" as a mental shortcut due to the similar format (independent of whether this is ever used in a UI). |
Sure, but in the early days of email people didn't (to my knowlege) call them "their gmail email" or "their yahoo email", at least not until it was cemented as a general-purpose thing that ~everyone knew well.
Sure, but we should strongly discourage this :) |
|
I agree with Matt that
[Company name] bitcoin address
is a recipe for confusion, as it will create an impression of many
different types of addresses (in a situation of already having many types
of addresses) when the whole point is for this to be universal, and thus
works to counter purposes. I think we should avoid this outcome and
certainly not advocate for it.
Are you proposing for UIs that “Simple Bitcoin Address” is better? We also
considered “Easy Bitcoin Address” and many others. We didn’t like those
because “simple” and “easy” seem tremendously over used in marketing
language (as you pointed out recently almost every bitcoin wallet describes
itself as simple). We landed on Human Bitcoin Address in part because
“human-readable” has always been part of the value proposition and because
it sets up the stark contrast of standard bitcoin addresses.
In terms of audience, immediately the primary audience is educating &
convincing the bitcoin ecosystem (eg the audience consuming this Design
Guide) of what BIP-353 is, why it is important and why adoption should be
prioritized. We will undertake an advocacy & outreach campaign in this
regard and will be publishing a blog post today or tomorrow (in which we
hope to use this HBA language).
But I think this label could/should find an appropriately subtle &
contextual way of appearing in product UIs as well, and for good reason.
First, given the desired universality of the technology, it should also be
universal in how everyone describes the thing—simply to create common
understanding between users, apps, builders. But also, practically. Until
there is ubiquity in understanding and availability, when a user asks
another “for their bitcoin address” and they get sent a bc1p38geu839uiwjnr
string they can go back and say no not that, send me your Human Bitcoin
Address, and a UI may show such an annotation as appropriate (it doesn’t
need to be screamed super prominently in the UI, just available when
needed to disambiguate). For instance in Phoenix, when they need to refer
to it they call it a BIP-353 DNS Address. I think HBA is strictly better!
Yet in the long term, as such addresses become (hopefully!) ubiquitous the
need for calling them anything in particular will go away and this will
just be the way everyone comes to know addressing in bitcoin. We like
making the technology disappear and that should the goal eventually.
But as a tactical matter for the foreseeable future we live in a world of
Bitcoin products with many addressing schemes where this one, which
hopefully can integrate and subsume them all, needs to be well-understood
as new and distinct and garner adoption. I think the proposed changes to
the Guide with this HBA naming help move the ecosystem in that direction.
…On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 4:49 AM Matt Corallo ***@***.***> wrote:
*TheBlueMatt* left a comment (BitcoinDesign/Guide#1203)
<#1203 (comment)>
[Company name] bitcoin address
This seems like a recipe for confusion. It signals clearly to
end-consumers that these are somehow not interoperable, even though they
are.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1203 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AORAHD2W2HHBCVT24OKKYKL4BAJGBAVCNFSM6AAAAACOOMNCFGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTMMZWHE2DMNRQGE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Email is not a good analogy because when email emerged there was not N
competing address types that could receive email. It was a singular
technology that gained widespread adoption and cultural relevance and so if
we have ended up in a world of “Gmail” and “Yahoo mail” being
well-understood it’s only due to the obviousness, uniqueness and ubiquity
of the technology.
That is not the world we are in with receiving Bitcoin today.
…On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 5:11 AM Matt Corallo ***@***.***> wrote:
*TheBlueMatt* left a comment (BitcoinDesign/Guide#1203)
<#1203 (comment)>
For email, people are OK with having Yahoo email addresses and
Google/Gmail email addresses) and don't worry about interoperability. Why
would it be problematic here? The page itself also describes this approach.
Sure, but in the early days of email people didn't (to my knowlege) call
them "their gmail email" or "their yahoo email", at least not until it was
cemented as a general-purpose thing that ~everyone knew well.
This was a speculative comment on what people might use colloquially. Like
people will say iWatch, despite there never having been a product with that
name (only Apple Watch, but if you search for iWatch on apple.com it will
show Apple Watch results). IRL language is full of shortcuts that make
sense in context, and I think there's a chance some people will just call
this "bitcoin email" as a mental shortcut due to the similar format
(independent of whether this is ever used in a UI).
Sure, but we should strongly discourage this :)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1203 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AORAHD5Z6PV6ID2MAFTG56D4BALZRAVCNFSM6AAAAACOOMNCFGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTMMZXGAZDQMBXHE>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Is "Oh, it's like an email for bitcoin" such a bad thing? Isn't the idea here that we make bitcoin more intuitive, specifically by tapping into these existing and established patterns that people already know? Can we use something that looks almost identical to email, without dragging in all the other associations? Either way, maybe it's good to re-focus conversation on the purpose of this PR, which is the light branding of the feature for the builder ecosystem, as Mat pointed out. If there are concerns about how the page content (specifically the design patterns further down, which does recommend the company name thing) present the feature in UI, maybe that needs to be a separate PR? Happy to merge the former part if everyone is happy with that change. |
ConorOkus
force-pushed
the
human-bitcoin-address
branch
from
55e6c85 to
3b9047a
Compare
|
Okay @GBKS will open a separate discussion PR about branding. I've added a little piece about contextual use in product UIs as well. |
5 participants
The idea behind this small change is that we need a clear name for BIP 353: DNS payment instructions. It’s important to keep the word “address” in the naming, since users are already familiar with it, but the naming and branding should also signal that it is distinct from an email address, a Lightning address, and a Bitcoin address.
This doesn’t prevent people from continuing to use the term “human-readable name” in technical discussions or descriptive contexts.
I also replaced references to BIP 21 with BIP 321, as the latter is a more polished version of the former and includes additional functionality—for example, a proof-of-payment callback.