<p>I don't think "received to" is a correct phrase in itself. You can say that "a transfer was made to my address", "I received money with my address" but not "I received money to my address". Then again, you probably should ask this question on <a href="https://english.stackexchange.com/">English SE</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-30T07:29:50.643Z
2012-09-30T07:29:50.643Z
2017-04-13T12:38:46.957Z
ThePiachu
<p>Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I feel that "received to" (some address) is more understandable or more naturally sounding to an average user than "received with". Is there any specific reason why "with" is consistently used in Bitcoin software?</p>

<p>As an analogy, if I own several e-mail addresses, I would naturally say I received an e-mail message "to" an address, not "with" it. The "with" variant seems to me to be a wallet's (ie. software's) point of view, not the user's; as in "I caught the ball with my left hand" which would be analog to "I, the wallet software, received the funds with this address". This might feel natural for a wallet programmer, but not the user.</p>

<p>I'm working on translating some Bitcoin software to Slovenian and would like to clear up some things like this before I make an incorrect or unclear expression get into widespread use in my language.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-29T17:20:06.747Z
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the usage of English language. It should be asked on [English.stackexchange.com](https://english.stackexchange.com/) instead.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-30T16:42:55.503Z
Normally you would use "to" to indicate the destination and "with" to indicate the mechanism. "I drove *to* New York *with* my car." In this case, all the funds went to the same place. The difference is the mechanism by which they are retrieved.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-09-30T21:08:52.233Z
@David: I think it's the exactly the point made by the OP. If you look at how bitcoin currently works, (any forgetting about English grammar) bitcoins are rather received *to* (or maybe *at*) an address, than received *with* an address (the address is not just the mechanism, but the recipient).
Stéphane Gimenez
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-10-01T04:25:29.857Z
See also [this answer](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/4875/1304) on whether the address should be considered a recipient or an internal mechanism.
mazi
<address>
Why is the phrase "Received with" used instead of "Received to"?
mazi
# Why is the phrase "Received with" used instead of "Received to"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-09-30)

Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I feel that "received to" (some address) is more understandable or more naturally sounding to an average user than "received with". Is there any specific reason why "with" is consistently used in Bitcoin software?

As an analogy, if I own several e-mail addresses, I would naturally say I received an e-mail message "to" an address, not "with" it. The "with" variant seems to me to be a wallet's (ie. software's) point of view, not the user's; as in "I caught the ball with my left hand" which would be analog to "I, the wallet software, received the funds with this address". This might feel natural for a wallet programmer, but not the user.

I'm working on translating some Bitcoin software to Slovenian and would like to clear up some things like this before I make an incorrect or unclear expression get into widespread use in my language.

**Tags:** address

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Normally you would use "to" to indicate the destination and "with" to indicate the mechanism. "I drove *to* New York *with* my car." In this case, all the funds went to the same place. The difference is the mechanism by which they are retrieved.  
> **username_3**: @username_2: I think it's the exactly the point made by the OP. If you look at how bitcoin currently works, (any forgetting about English grammar) bitcoins are rather received *to* (or maybe *at*) an address, than received *with* an address (the address is not just the mechanism, but the recipient).  
> **username_0**: See also [this answer](http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/4875/1304) on whether the address should be considered a recipient or an internal mechanism.  
> **username_1**: This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the usage of English language. It should be asked on [English.stackexchange.com](https://english.stackexchange.com/) instead.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-09-30. Score: 2

I don't think "received to" is a correct phrase in itself. You can say that "a transfer was made to my address", "I received money with my address" but not "I received money to my address". Then again, you probably should ask this question on [English SE](https://english.stackexchange.com/).


---

