How to understand these transactions all using the same address?

[enricodc]

Would some kind person explain how to understand the transactions shown in this screen-grab? Why would the one address be used so many times? Why is it both the sender and the recipient in the one transaction? How is it that the one sending address can show different bitcoin balances (these transactions occurred within seconds of each other)? Thanks in advance.

https://sites.google.com/view/screenshotz/home

[Maus0728]

What you are seeing a kind or some sort of a normal or common transaction held between the receiver and the sending addresses.

Why would the one address be used so many times? Why is it both the sender and the recipient in the one transaction? How is it that the one sending address can show different bitcoin balances (these transactions occurred within seconds of each other)? Thanks in advance.

Most of the common transaction will show you two outputs which are the receiver address and the address of the current owner (the sending address) called the change address. The sole reason why this happen is because the bitcoin transaction works similarly to the fiat transaction whereas you cannot divide the $100 bill to purchase a $50 item in a store thus, you are expecting another transaction to receive the other half which is $50 bill as your change.

Based on the example

Sending Address: 1JQVGBZxnW7rG7ApmEz7HSKSh7DBEANSrY -  9.13953603 BTC

Receiving Address: 176FxdbuXhLiT7KdQSzgWEbTtswUdX8EQ7- 0.00090760 BTC

Change address (which is yours): 1JQVGBZxnW7rG7ApmEz7HSKSh7DBEANSrY - 9.13833929 BTC

9.13953603 BTC - 0.00090760 BTC = 9.13833929 BTC (change)

[o_e_l_e_o]

Why would the one address be used so many times?

One bitcoin address can be used as many times as you like. However, it is good for privacy reasons not to reuse an address.

Why is it both the sender and the recipient in the one transaction?

Maus0728 has explained why the address in question is on both the sending and receiving ends of the same transaction. Usually a bitcoin transaction will send whatever is left over from the input as change to a new address owned by the sender. In these cases, the sender has instead opted to have the change returned to the same address.

How is it that the one sending address can show different bitcoin balances (these transactions occurred within seconds of each other)?

One address can contain many outputs. Think of an analogy of placing a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $10 bill, a $20 bill, a $50 bill, and a $100 bill, all in your wallet together. In total, you are holding $186, but each bill is separate. You can pull out the $1 bill, spend 20 cents and return the 80 cents to your wallet, and then 2 seconds later pull out the $100 bill, spend $50 and return $50 to your wallet, and later still pull out the $20 bill. Each transaction you are seeing in your screenshot is spending a different output from the same address, which is why the value is changing.

[JasonXIII]

It's not unusual. If you have a paper wallet or an address on an exchange or a custodial wallet, you won't change it for each transaction. It's not everybody who needs anonymity and it's more convenient to have only one address.

[Maus0728]

It's not unusual. If you have a paper wallet or an address on an exchange or a custodial wallet, you won't change it for each transaction. It's not everybody who needs anonymity and it's more convenient to have only one address.

If you do not care about the security and privacy of your coins, theny why bother changing your address?

People are doing it because they wanted to attain an optimum privacy and security to their hard-earned money. This would be the very best practice if you are holding a large amount of cryptocurrency in your pocket. They just wanted to reduce the risk of a virtual and physical threat.

There is nothing more convenient than knowing that you are not compromised.

[JasonXIII]

It's not unusual. If you have a paper wallet or an address on an exchange or a custodial wallet, you won't change it for each transaction. It's not everybody who needs anonymity and it's more convenient to have only one address.

If you do not care about the security and privacy of your coins, theny why bother changing your address?

People are doing it because they wanted to attain an optimum privacy and security to their hard-earned money. This would be the very best practice if you are holding a large amount of cryptocurrency in your pocket. They just wanted to reduce the risk of a virtual and physical threat.

There is nothing more convenient than knowing that you are not compromised.

During years you will lose a big amount of dust by doing this. With an unique address, or only few addresses you won't lose those bitcoins.

[o_e_l_e_o]

During years you will lose a big amount of dust by doing this. With an unique address, or only few addresses you won't lose those bitcoins.

This is not accurate.

Fees are based on outputs, not addresses. If I receive 100 transactions to 100 addresses and consolidate them in to one output, I the transaction size will be exactly the same as if I had received 100 transactions to the same addresses and was consolidating them in to one output. Using the same address to receive to over and over again doesn't save you anything in fees at all.

Using multiple address is not inconvenient or difficult at all, as you make it out to be. All good wallets will manage your addresses for you automatically - creating a new one every time you go to make a deposit, and automatically returning your change to a new one.

[JasonXIII]

During years you will lose a big amount of dust by doing this. With an unique address, or only few addresses you won't lose those bitcoins.

This is not accurate.

Fees are based on outputs, not addresses. If I receive 100 transactions to 100 addresses and consolidate them in to one output, I the transaction size will be exactly the same as if I had received 100 transactions to the same addresses and was consolidating them in to one output. Using the same address to receive to over and over again doesn't save you anything in fees at all.

Using multiple address is not inconvenient or difficult at all, as you make it out to be. All good wallets will manage your addresses for you automatically - creating a new one every time you go to make a deposit, and automatically returning your change to a new one.

It seems you don't understand what dust is sir. Dust is an amount of bitcoin to small to be sent by your wallet. When you use several addresses, you get dust you can't send anymore. If you use one single address you won't get any dust.

[o_e_l_e_o]

It seems you don't understand what dust is sir. Dust is an amount of bitcoin to small to be sent by your wallet. When you use several addresses, you get dust you can't send anymore. If you use one single address you won't get any dust.

You are wrong. As I said above, using a single address or using multiple addresses within the same wallet makes absolutely zero difference when talking about dust. If the input is too small to be sent, it will be too small to be sent regardless of what address it is on. Since UTXOs remain entirely separate until spent, it doesn't matter if all your dust outputs are contained within a single address - they are still dust.

You are confusing addresses with outputs. Addresses can hold multiple outputs. Outputs are what are fed in to transactions. It is the value of the output, not the value of the address, which is important. An address with 5,000 outputs of 100 satoshi each will have a total value of 0.005 BTC, but the outputs are still dust.

[JasonXIII]

It seems you don't understand what dust is sir. Dust is an amount of bitcoin to small to be sent by your wallet. When you use several addresses, you get dust you can't send anymore. If you use one single address you won't get any dust.

You are wrong. As I said above, using a single address or using multiple addresses within the same wallet makes absolutely zero difference when talking about dust. If the input is too small to be sent, it will be too small to be sent regardless of what address it is on. Since UTXOs remain entirely separate until spent, it doesn't matter if all your dust outputs are contained within a single address - they are still dust.

You are confusing addresses with outputs. Addresses can hold multiple outputs. Outputs are what are fed in to transactions. It is the value of the output, not the value of the address, which is important. An address with 5,000 outputs of 100 satoshi each will have a total value of 0.005 BTC, but the outputs are still dust.

I'm not wrong, and I'm not confusing anything. You are wrong.
Your wallet will not take dust from other addresses, while it will take all utxos from your unique adress. That's why there isn't any dust when you use only one address.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Your wallet will not take dust from other addresses, while it will take all utxos from your unique adress. That's why there isn't any dust when you use only one address.

It sounds like you are maybe talking about an account on an exchange or some other website or online service, which might explain your confusion. These online services, in which someone else holds your private keys and holds your coins are not really wallets at all. If you are running a actual wallet where you control the private keys, then which specific address within that wallet the output is on, or whether you have multiple outputs on one address or spread across multiple address, is completely irrelevant.

It is completely trivial to make a transaction which combines multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs.

[JasonXIII]

Your wallet will not take dust from other addresses, while it will take all utxos from your unique adress. That's why there isn't any dust when you use only one address.

It sounds like you are maybe talking about an account on an exchange or some other website or online service, which might explain your confusion. These online services, in which someone else holds your private keys and holds your coins are not really wallets at all. If you are running a actual wallet where you control the private keys, then which specific address within that wallet the output is on, or whether you have multiple outputs on one address or spread across multiple address, is completely irrelevant.

It is completely trivial to make a transaction which combines multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs.

I'm not talking about exchanges, I'm talking about any software wallet.
So your solution now, is to "combine multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs" LOL   how do you know if the wallet used is able to do that first?
Do you know some wallets on smartphone offering this feature?
Do you really think people want to do this kind of trick for each transaction they are sending? Are you doing it yourself?
You could also have proposed to write entirely the raw transactions manually...  

[Pffrt]

I'm not talking about exchanges, I'm talking about any software wallet.
So your solution now, is to "combine multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs" LOL   how do you know if the wallet used is able to do that first?

It will be automatically summed up by the wallet, for example Electrum. Imagine, you have a lot of addresses which have a balance of 0.01 each. Now, if you want to send 0.1 BTC, wallet will be able to send 0.1 BTC which will be the input. And with coin control, you can send any utxo you want.

Do you know some wallets on smartphone offering this feature?

Same, electrum mobile wallet can do that.

Do you really think people want to do this kind of trick for each transaction they are sending? Are you doing it yourself?

People who care about privacy does this every time certainly. Personally I don't do this most of the times. It depends on which wallet I am using.
I don't know what you are refrring, I'm confused too. However, this is very simple work.

[JasonXIII]

I'm not talking about exchanges, I'm talking about any software wallet.
So your solution now, is to "combine multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs" LOL   how do you know if the wallet used is able to do that first?

It will be automatically summed up by the wallet, for example Electrum. Imagine, you have a lot of addresses which have a balance of 0.01 each. Now, if you want to send 0.1 BTC, wallet will be able to send 0.1 BTC which will be the input. And with coin control, you can send any utxo you want.

I'm talking about dust, don't you understand?

Do you know some wallets on smartphone offering this feature?

Same, electrum mobile wallet can do that.

Could you show us a screen in this case... have you ever used it for saying that?  Obviously not. 

I don't know what you are refrring, I'm confused too. However, this is very simple work.

You don't understand what I'm talking about but you are replying?

[o_e_l_e_o]

So your solution now, is to "combine multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs" LOL   how do you know if the wallet used is able to do that first?

Yes. Every half decent wallet does this automatically. If you are using a wallet which can't combine two UTXOs from different addresses in the same wallet in to one transaction, I suggest you change wallet. No wonder you have problems with dust if this is the case.

Do you know some wallets on smartphone offering this feature?

Pretty much all of them.

Do you really think people want to do this kind of trick for each transaction they are sending? Are you doing it yourself?

They don't need to. The wallet should deal with it all automatically.

Which wallet are you using that can't handle more than one address without creating dust?

[JasonXIII]

So your solution now, is to "combine multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses as inputs" LOL   how do you know if the wallet used is able to do that first?

Yes. Every half decent wallet does this automatically. If you are using a wallet which can't combine two UTXOs from different addresses in the same wallet in to one transaction, I suggest you change wallet. No wonder you have problems with dust if this is the case.

Do you know some wallets on smartphone offering this feature?

Pretty much all of them.

Do you really think people want to do this kind of trick for each transaction they are sending? Are you doing it yourself?

They don't need to. The wallet should deal with it all automatically.

Which wallet are you using that can't handle more than one address without creating dust?

LOL you are more and more ridiculous.   Now you are stating that dust doesn't exist. LOL  
If you have nothing to reply it's better to not reply at all...
I have wasted enough time with you. I'm not here to increase your post number for your campaign.  

[o_e_l_e_o]

LOL you are more and more ridiculous.   Now you are stating that dust doesn't exist. LOL  

Please quote where I said that.

If you don't want to learn, that's fine, but honestly, combining multiple UTXOs from multiple addresses is very basic stuff. Consolidating your inputs like this is useful precisely because dust exists, and the idea is to combine all the dust from multiple inputs in to one output when fees are low to save you money down the line.

Look at this transaction for example: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/dfa34fbf0c47a5f213e0e9815843513d05c9087fa52bc9120a9e9c357693b0cf

23 inputs from 23 different addresses, 21 of them being the absolute smallest amount of dust that is able to be sent (546 satoshi), all combined in one transaction in to a larger output.

With any half decent wallet, it's as simple as sending the entire balance of the wallet to a fresh address, and the wallet will automatically do the rest. With good wallets like Electrum, you can also manually select which UTXOs from which addresses to include in your transaction.

[enricodc]

Thanks for your explanations. I learned a lot from your discussions. This is a great forum.