I am struggling to come up with any remotely rational basis for your complaint. Are you under the impression that a user could only have a single chain, and thus this practice would reduce their privacy for all their addresses rather than just the subset which would have instead used a single static address?
If you're going to encourage people to upload their extended public keys to this forum to hand out to other users on their behalf, then some of them are going to believe they are getting more privacy than they actually are. That is only marginally more secure than posting a static public address and might be worse in practise because of the false sense of security. That's what I mean by a honeypot.
Under any circumstance where it happens when the receiver is not looking forward at least 1000 addresses.
If Alice is expecting a payment from Bob, then she just watches her series of addresses, incrementing her lookahead windows appropriately, until she sees the entire thing.
If Alice is worried about Bob being a jerk and sending payments out of sequence or otherwise inconveniencing her, she just need to arrange the deal such that she waits to deliver whatever product or service is being paid for until she can confirm the payment. That puts the onus on Bob to uphold good behaviour if he wants Alice to follow through on whatever deal is happening in a timely manner.
Alice should also never give the same extended public key to two people, so one person's griefing won't affect her dealing with anyone else.
If we're talking about donations, and some donor wants to send the donation to the address at index 1000000 instead of 1, then Alice will probably not see it for a while. She's no worse off though than if the donor had never sent it at all.
