|
bitbaby
|
 |
October 24, 2015, 03:42:37 AM |
|
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user? I'm curious about your opinions! Websites don't need to babysit it's users and worry about their privacy and the security concerns of re-using an address which as of now afaik are none cmiiw and I don't think there is any need for websites to implement a warning or any such feature, maybe in future when we have quantum computers we need to worry about such things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, but full nodes are more resource-heavy, and they must do a lengthy initial syncing process. As a result, lightweight clients with somewhat less security are commonly used.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 4158
Merit: 8382
|
|
October 24, 2015, 08:16:26 PM |
|
Two more.questions regarding to that: 1) It was known how to generate a new address without a ptivate key back in 2009? If I'm right, this comes from a modern BIP (deterministic wallets)  I invented it in 2011: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=19137.msg239768#msg239768 as a response to people reusing addresses because they didn't want to have private keys online. It was later standardized as BIP32. 2) I don't care about privacy, I prefer to have a working Donation address all the time rather than being 100% a ghost. :p
You may not currently care, and its your right to screw over your future self (which you may well be doing)-- but reuse also harms _other_ users in Bitcoin, who do care about privacy, and this degrades the fungibility of coins; since coins which are linked to this or that party are clearly different, and differently valuable than coins which are linked to other parties or are not linked. |
|
|
|
|
Delek
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 157
Merit: 100
Salí para ver
|
|
October 24, 2015, 09:04:48 PM |
|
reuse also harms _other_ users in Bitcoin, who do care about privacy, and this degrades the fungibility of coins; since coins which are linked to this or that party are clearly different, and differently valuable than coins which are linked to other parties or are not linked.
If that's so harmful for Bitcoin why there's was never prohibited in Core?, I mean, the address reuse should be disabled if you are 100% right. Btw, how do we can have working donation addresses this way? Only using it for sending the inputs to another random addresses?  "Mined addresses" (vanitygen) are harmful then too?  This is very shocking for me. |
|
|
|
philipma1957
Legendary
 Online
Activity: 4102
Merit: 7764
'The right to privacy matters'
|
|
October 25, 2015, 12:44:04 AM |
|
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user? I'm curious about your opinions! I don't want to be anonymous so I use the same address. Over and over and over. Can you explain to me how this is harmful? Don't tell me if everyone did this no one would be anonymous as that is not particularly harmful. IMO I want a public repeatable addy. I realize I can have a wallet with hundreds of addy's if I want or I can use one over and over and over if I want. I suppose some people want to remain hidden via changing of addresses so let them change every time. Or let them have a common address that repeats over and over and over plus a set of hidden multi addresses. |
|
|
|
|
makcik
|
|
November 04, 2015, 01:19:48 PM |
|
Bitcoins address are used for sending and receiving bitcoins from one wallet to another, so I think Websites should send coins multiple times to one address as person may use same address twice for transaction. If websites don't do , people will obviously get loss, which is not correct. As bitcoins address are allotted to one wallet, and one wallet is usually to one person.
|
|
|
|
|
bob123
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
|
|
November 19, 2015, 11:52:09 AM |
|
I dont think they should do that.
This just would be so unuseful for payments made each week/month.
|
|
|
|
|
virtualx
|
|
November 21, 2015, 11:37:05 AM |
|
Some websites create a new bitcoin address to deposit every time. Users can always change their bitcoin address on sites, even on bitcointalk. I don't think there is a reason to force the users. However, I agree with Delek and generation of bitcoin addresses should never be online.
|
...loteo...
DIGITAL ERA LOTTERY | ║
║
║ | | r |
▄▄███████████▄▄
▄███████████████████▄
▄███████████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████████▄
▄██ ███████▌ ▐██████████████▄
▐██▌ ▐█▀ ▀█ ▐█▀ ▀██▀ ▀██▌
▐██ █▌ █▌ ██ ██▌ ██▌ █▌ █▌ ██▌
▐█▌ ▐█ ▐█ ▐█▌ ▐██ ▄▄▄██ ▐█ ▐██▌
▐█ ██▄ ▄██ █▄ ██▄ ▄███▌
▀████████████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████████████▀
▀███████████████████████▀
▀███████████████████▀
▀▀███████████▀▀
| r | | ║
║
║ | RPLAY NOWR
BE A MOON VISITOR! |
[/center] |
|
|
Erkallys
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 21, 2015, 01:28:16 PM |
|
I don't see why they should do such a thing. Some people have their own personalised address, doing this would make those address obsolete. Also faucets pay users to a single address that plays the role of user's account. Also if you apply this, they won't be enough addresses for everyone until 2030.
|
|
|
|
|
cr1776
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4018
Merit: 1299
|
|
November 21, 2015, 04:45:02 PM |
|
I don't see why they should do such a thing. Some people have their own personalised address, doing this would make those address obsolete. Also faucets pay users to a single address that plays the role of user's account. Also if you apply this, they won't be enough addresses for everyone until 2030.
There are 2^160 addresses, the sun will expire before bitcoin "runs out" of addresses. It is best practices to not re-use addresses, but people are free to do as they wish. Some places may require a new one, others may not. |
|
|
|
|
Erkallys
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1001
|
|
November 21, 2015, 05:36:14 PM |
|
I don't see why they should do such a thing. Some people have their own personalised address, doing this would make those address obsolete. Also faucets pay users to a single address that plays the role of user's account. Also if you apply this, they won't be enough addresses for everyone until 2030.
There are 2^160 addresses, the sun will expire before bitcoin "runs out" of addresses. It is best practices to not re-use addresses, but people are free to do as they wish. Some places may require a new one, others may not. I was not aware there was so much available addresses. I think that 2^160 is enough for the whole humanity  . |
|
|
|
|
Alphabit
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 1
|
|
November 25, 2015, 08:36:01 PM |
|
Well this is a very informative post. Just when I thought there were too many address, I know better now reading though it all. My practice is to change the addresses it can be a little complex at times to keep check of all. My suggestion and practice is to list them on a spreadsheet.
|
|
|
|
|
btckold24
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 434
Merit: 250
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
|
|
November 27, 2015, 10:41:33 AM |
|
isnt their some sites like gambling sites that when you deposit you have to get the money back to that wallet? I remember a site saying dont send btc from a wallet you cant access cause we have to return the btc to that wallet in which we received it from.
|
|
|
|
alrachid
Member
Offline
Activity: 101
Merit: 10
Just another man trying to find his way.
|
|
December 01, 2015, 07:37:57 PM |
|
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user? I'm curious about your opinions! I dont even see an option to change my address anymore in coinbase so I would be greatly upset if someone wouldnt send me my coins because I have to use that addy atm. |
|
|
|
|
EngiNerd
|
|
December 01, 2015, 08:47:11 PM |
|
As others may have mentioned, wouldn't this practice completely eliminate sites like FaucetBox (and with it a significant amount of faucets)?
In my opinion, faucets and platforms like FaucetBox are a great tool for introducing people to bitcoin. Without them I think getting started in bitcoin becomes much more difficult. Some of you feel that the security implications are severe enough to warrant mandating more complex requirements on address management, but I think others here aren't so sure it's worth the tradeoff.
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
