If I fully understand the need for anonymous transaction, there's *a lot* of cases when you do want to be authentified and to send a message with your transaction. With bitcoin, I imagine a system like the following:
There's also a need for a bank account ID that you can easily remember.
Let's say that my bitcoin bank is ploum.net. My id could be ploum.net/ploum
If my friend "Joe" (which has an account on bitcoin.com) want to pay me 5BTC for a party, in his banking software, he just put :
Receiver : http://ploum.net/ploum
Amount : 5
Message : thanks for the party buddy
What will happen then is the following :
From Joe Pal ( http://bitcoin.com/joe
Message : Thanks for the party buddy
Replying with new bitcoin adress
Using the bitcoin adress to pay 5BTC
This makes it at least as useful as the current banking system. Even more because account number are now a simple URL.
+ Easy to use, easy to give your account ID to someone.
+ Hide completely the ugly bitcoin adress from end user sight.
+ Allow to transmit message
+ Could also be used anonymously (for example, by going with a web browser to http://ploum.net/ploum
, you can receive a bitcoin adress that you can use manually)
+ Decentralized. Anyone with a http server can implement his own bitcoin bank compatible with the system.
- No real authentification (anybody can fake Joe Pal and pay for him. But does it make sense to forbid that ?)
- Someone using the bitcoin adress manually could use it multiple times and you will always see the same message. But the client might display only the total received by a bitcoin adress, not each transaction.
Is there already discussions about doing that ?
Is there any standardization on the communication between ploum.net and bitcoin.com ?
Did I missed something ?