Skip to content
Blockchain LabBlockchain LabTHE VENTURE STUDIO

LibraryData and agents2019Design paperCorpus record

Name for payment recipient identifiers

BIP 179. Emil Engler.

BIP 179, Name for payment recipient identifiers. 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.

Status in the source: Complete. A reading of the public specification, not a copy of it and not a certification.

Name for payment recipient identifiers is worth reading for the rule it actually adds: 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.
Evidence
Primary paper
Re-measured
No
Assumptions
3
Records linked
3

Code

Source, repository, and what is actually hosted

  • BIP 179https://bips.dev/179
  • The source URL is not a GitHub repository. No code remote is invented.
  • Full text is not mirrored. Public availability is not a licence to copy the file onto this site.
  • Add to a reading list

01 Claim ledger

What the paper is allowed to say

Each row is a sentence already in the study. The status is the same on every row: a model claim, not a live measurement.

  1. Claim 01 · Paper model

    The rule

    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.

  2. Claim 02 · Paper model

    What was already failing

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

  3. Claim 03 · Paper model

    What the number does not mean

    The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

  4. Claim 04 · Paper model

    What a builder should be able to point at

    An implementation either constrains Name for payment recipient identifiers or it is a different design.

02 Three cuts

Observation, model, falsifier

A desk does not stop at the summary. Each claim is cut three ways, using only this study's own assumptions and checks. Nothing here is a new figure.

  1. 01 The rule

    Observation

    What the study says

    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.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object that has to change is Name for payment recipient identifiers. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What must an implementation of Name for payment recipient identifiers accept, and what may it ignore?

  2. 02 What was already failing

    Observation

    What the study says

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

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object that has to change is Name for payment recipient identifiers. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Is this consensus, peer policy, or an application interface?

  3. 03 What the number does not mean

    Observation

    What the study says

    The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

    Model

    What has to hold

    You are implementing BIP 179 at the status the text itself states: Complete.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    Which names does the text pin down: Name for payment recipient identifiers?

  4. 04 What a builder should be able to point at

    Observation

    What the study says

    An implementation either constrains Name for payment recipient identifiers or it is a different design.

    Model

    What has to hold

    The object that has to change is Name for payment recipient identifiers. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

    Falsifier

    What would retire it

    What must an implementation of Name for payment recipient identifiers accept, and what may it ignore?

03 Sequence

One action, as an operating tape

  1. 01Open BIP 179 and read the status line before the examples.
  2. 02Write 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. 03Name the object that changes: Name for payment recipient identifiers.
  4. 04Ask what an old client, an old contract, or an offline counterparty does. If the document is silent, the silence is part of the design.

04 Load-bearing

The argument, and where a pitch drops it

  1. What the text is allowed to settle

    The cut

    Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 179 can settle the shape of Name for payment recipient identifiers. It cannot settle whether a later client, a later fork, or a later wallet still does this.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    The source marks this complete. That is a statement about the text, not a promise that every wallet or node has shipped it.

  2. What this page will not pretend

    The cut

    There is no benchmark, no adoption number, and no claim that the mechanism is safe outside the assumptions written in the source.

    Why it carries weight

    If this cut is skipped, the paper's name is being used without the mechanism that makes the name mean anything.

    Where it is dropped

    Status in the header is not adoption.

05 Register

What has to be true

  • Model · Not re-measured

    You are implementing BIP 179 at the status the text itself states: Complete.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    The object that has to change is Name for payment recipient identifiers. A neighbouring document with a similar name is not this one.

  • Model · Not re-measured

    Status in the header is not adoption.

06 Divergence

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.

A later client, parameter set, or reward formula is a different object. Cite this paper for the mechanism. Cite a primary release for the network. This desk has not re-run the proof.

07 Pre-mortem

What to check before you use the idea

  4. 0 of 3 marked on this browser. A mark is a reading note, not a pass, a rating, or a recommendation.

08 Anatomy

The paper, in the order a builder needs

The problem it 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 the desk 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.

09 Lexicon

Terms, opened into the record

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.

10 Repository

Every linked record on this page

Underlined words open a page that already exists: a concept, a protocol profile, a failure record, or another paper. If a word is not underlined, this desk does not have a record for it.

Protocols

This is Blockchain Lab's reading of a public design paper. It is not the paper, not a copy of it, and not an offer of tokens, equity, custody or a partnership. Later network behaviour can diverge from the text. Nothing here is investment, legal or technical advice.

Research status: Design paper. Last reviewed: 1 October 2026. This is a reading of a public paper, not investment, legal or security advice.