-2
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.
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about the usage of English language. It should be asked on English.stackexchange.com instead.
– Murch – 2014-03-29T17:20:06.7471Normally 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 – 2012-09-30T16:42:55.503
@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 – 2012-09-30T21:08:52.233
See also this answer on whether the address should be considered a recipient or an internal mechanism.
– mazi – 2012-10-01T04:25:29.857