I want to propose a user-facing name for RPA: Cash Code.
As a wallet app developer, I’m seriously considering RPA support in Opal Wallet because the benefit to users seems clear. There is also real work happening this area already: Electron Cash RPA, CashFusion compatibility, SRPA discussion, etc. I’m still catching up on parts of the technical design space, so I’m not trying to settle protocol terminology here.
For builder discussion, I think RPA is fine. But for wallet UI and public communication, it feels a bit weak. Cash Code feels like a better user-facing name.
Cash is already one of the strongest words in Bitcoin Cash. It carries the original “peer-to-peer electronic cash” story without needing much explanation. It also fits the naming pattern the ecosystem already uses: CashAddr, CashTokens, CashFusion, CashScript.
These phrases feel natural to me:
- “Here is my Cash Code.”
- “Please donate any amount of BCH to this Cash Code.”
- “Opal Wallet supports Cash Code.”
- “Scan this Cash Code to send me BCH.”
That is the main reason I like it. It sounds like something normal wallet users could actually say.
Cash Code, a user-facing name for Bitcoin Cash Reusable Payment Addresses.
Does anyone think this is technically misleading in any important way? Does Cash Code conflict with existing BCH terminology? And has someone already proposed a similar naming direction before?