Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse!

[rpietila]

Do the wallets support this (when will they)?

[prophetx]

IMHO coins are simply coins.

On a related note, that's what I tried to express here: http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/11/eli5-bitcoin.html

Of course coins are coins, but when the men in black show up at your door and start asking you about tx between you and other addresses as they try to id people, then you shall realize why not all coins are equal :p

That is why the real solution to fungibility is making all coins dirty.  They do not have time to question millions of people.

That is how assymetric warfare works boys :p

[BitThink]

IMHO coins are simply coins.

On a related note, that's what I tried to express here: http://bitcoinism.blogspot.com/2013/11/eli5-bitcoin.html

Of course coins are coins, but when the men in black show up at your door and start asking you about tx between you and other addresses as they try to id people, then you shall realize why not all coins are equal :p

That is why the real solution to fungibility is making all coins dirty.  They do not have time to question millions of people.

That is how assymetric warfare works boys :p

Use mix service for that purpose. Rely on everyone changing address every time is always risky and will only give you false sense of safety.

[murraypaul]

If it's this important shouldn't Eligius start forcing new addresses for every withdrawal?

Yes, migrating to HD/recurring invoice ids has been on the todo list for Eligius for a long time.
Unfortunately, wallet software has not matured enough for that yet.

So you don't support using new addresses, but think everyone else who doesn't support it should be punished?
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I think this move should have waited a few more months at least, but we're out of time it seems.
In other words, I would vote "We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now."

If you want to lead from the front, wouldn't a better approach be to develop the website frontend for supporting multiple addresses, and offer that up to other sites to reuse, at the same time as putting in the 'de-prioritisation'? At the moment you've introduced a problem, but not the solution.

[BurtW]

If you want to lead from the front, wouldn't a better approach be to develop the website frontend for supporting multiple addresses, and offer that up to other sites to reuse, at the same time as putting in the 'de-prioritisation'? At the moment you've introduced a problem, but not the solution.

From what I can tell the code needed to do this is available.  See here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334316.msg3598018#msg3598018

[Carlton Banks]

Do the wallets support this (when will they)?

If you mean this mining patch, they support this already, even though the client running the patch is different to the standard wallets available today (so this is not even a soft fork, to put it another way)

If you're talking about the key-chains/BIP32, I think the plan is to include that feature in the forthcoming 0.9 Qt/bitcoind client.

This patch only seems to affect donations and webmerchants that re-use addresses right now, and the former could route around it right now by adding a bit of Bitcoin RPC code into their webshop coding. I don't think the days of using this method are over, and it's actually a better method for privacy. Anyone with a copy of a BIP32 keychain can see how much money has been paid to that keychain (but you can create as many keychains as you like, just like with regular public keys now). So if you've got a an always-on server on the web, and are using a webpage (i.e. that you run or have permission to insert the appropriate code into) to request bitcoin for whatever reason, you can use the tried and trusted (and private on a per-payee basis) way to take payments or donations.

[franky1]

i have a number of addresses but i have it organised so that each address is a ledger for a particular project

i do not want to have to set up a new address with a regular customer everytime they pay me.
EG. BTC-E or BITSTAMP customers do not want to forced into keep looking for a new deposit address everytime they want to deposit into their account. they prefer the option to refresh address or continue using original address linked to their username.

i do not then want to have balances split over hundreds of addresses which would add KBytes of data to the next tx i send, meaning higher fee's for pool owners to take .. hmmm i might have hit a spot here where a pool owner would love this as a selfish reason to make them more money at the expense of user convenience.

i do not want delays when topping up my cold store address (paper wallet)


i do not want to wait 10 hours because in the last 30 seconds only 60 people out of millions are also re-using addresses
i do not want to wait 3 hours because in the last 30 seconds only 18 people out of millions are also re-using addresses

i want to wait just 10 minutes because millions of people are able to do with their own funds the way they want.

[DeathAndTaxes]

i do not then want to have to have balances split over hundreds of addresses which would add KBytes of data to the transaction, meaning higher fee's for pool owners to take .. hmmm i might have hit a spot here where a pool owner would love this as a selfish reason to make them more money at the expense of user convenience.

Please learn how Bitcoin works.  The number of addresses used as inputs in a tx is irrelevant to the tx size.   Each INPUT (same address or different) uses ~150 bytes.  10 inputs from the same address = ~1.5KB.  10 inputs from 10 addresses = ~1.5KB.

i do not want ...

Ok you don't want it.  Then mine blocks and don't apply the patch.  Problem solved.   You didn't ever think you were able to force miners to include your tx in a block did you?  The patch doesn't give miners some brand new novel power/authority.

i want to wait just 10 minutes because millions of people are able to do with their own funds the way they want.

And miners are free to prioritize transactions how they see fit.  Isn't freedom great.

[franky1]

Please learn how Bitcoin works.  The number of addresses used as inputs in a tx is irrelevant to the tx size.   Each INPUT (same address or different) uses ~150 bytes.  10 inputs from the same address = ~1.5KB.  10 inputs from 10 addresses = ~1.5KB.

here he goes meandering the subject offtopic.
learn "sweeping"

instead of me just receiving 100 TX's where customers pay no fee individually. i have to make a transaction that groups all of those together to bring them into an address i want. EG a project address, or a cold store paper wallet public key.

and im not going to send each transaction individually to avoid fee's especially knowing the second TX will have to wait for the next block and the 3rd will wait for the block after that. and so on for 100 blocks thanks to luke JR protocol causing a 16 hour delay atleast.

and if you look on the main bitcointalk thread you will see many people complain about lengthy delays just to get their coin accepted into a block.

this is much like banks.. ruining a good financial system for personal gain. the financial system protocol should not be used to cause miners to gain more profit or be in favour of them. it should be a unbiased system.

a comparitive would be banks only wanting to deal with people with 20 credit cards and willing to accept high interest on those cards.

security of the network and making peoples financial freedoms easier to manage should be top priority. not mining pool owners 'cut' of the pie bigger by forcing people to transact differently or pay the consequence

[DeathAndTaxes]

There is no "personal gain".  A tx with 10 inputs from the same address is no larger or smaller than a tx with 10 inputs from 10 unique addresses.  So please (I honestly mean it) spend some time learning about how Bitcoin works before you start throwing around FUD.

Miners have ALWAYS had the power to prioritize tx as they see fit.  Always, back to the genesis block.  If you are realizing this for the first time well that is kinda sad.  If Luke never published the patch his pool would still be able to internally prioritize tx as they see fit.  Why are you so afraid of freedom?

[BurtW]

i have to make a transaction that groups all of those together to bring them into an address i want. EG a project address, or a cold store paper wallet public key.

You can do this in one transaction, one block, one fee.

[murraypaul]

Why are you so afraid of freedom?

Why are you (those proposing this) so afraid of my freedom to reuse an address?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why are you so afraid of freedom?

Why are you (those proposing this) so afraid of my freedom to reuse an address?

They aren't. You are free to continue to reuse addresses.   Freedom of choice means a CHOICE.   It doesn't mean other people have to support your choice if they disagree with it.   Nobody is forcing you to change how you operate.  Miners have always had the right to prioritize tx.  After every block SOME tx are not included.  The patch simply changes which tx have priority, nothing more.

[Amitabh S]

People wanting anonymity can reuse addresses. No need to force anything down people's throats.

[murraypaul]

Why are you so afraid of freedom?

Why are you (those proposing this) so afraid of my freedom to reuse an address?

They aren't. You are free to continue to reuse addresses.   Freedom of choice means a CHOICE.   It doesn't mean other people have to support your choice if they disagree with it.   Nobody is forcing you to change how you operate.  Miners have always had the right to prioritize tx.  After every block SOME tx are not included.  The patch simply changes which tx have priority, nothing more.

The clear purpose of this is to dissuade people from reusing addresses, you wouldn't disagree with that?
While I still have the option, you are making it a poorer option than it was before, for political reasons.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why are you so afraid of freedom?

Why are you (those proposing this) so afraid of my freedom to reuse an address?

They aren't. You are free to continue to reuse addresses.   Freedom of choice means a CHOICE.   It doesn't mean other people have to support your choice if they disagree with it.   Nobody is forcing you to change how you operate.  Miners have always had the right to prioritize tx.  After every block SOME tx are not included.  The patch simply changes which tx have priority, nothing more.

The clear purpose of this is to dissuade people from reusing addresses, you wouldn't disagree with that?
While I still have the option, you are making it a poorer option than it was before, for political reasons.

That is called freedom.  Freedom doesn't mean people always doing what you WANT them to do, thats easy. In fact it often means people doing something you disagree with, freedom of speech means someone having the freedom to say things you might find hurtful or offensive.

Yes freedom can be scary.  Freedom can mean you are inconvenienced.  Freedom can make you question if your choice is worth it.

So once again why are you so afraid of freedom?

Also "I" am not doing anything. At the time of the writing I am not mining (although may in the future) and I didn't right the patch.  I just happen to agree with it.

[mootinator]

It stinks of social engineering. If not reusing addresses is the only way bitcoin will survive there will be no need to pressure people into doing that.

[DeathAndTaxes]

It stinks of social engineering. If not reusing addresses is the only way bitcoin will survive there will be no need to pressure people into doing that.

That is short sighted thinking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing

[mootinator]

It stinks of social engineering. If not reusing addresses is the only way bitcoin will survive there will be no need to pressure people into doing that.

That is short sighted thinking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing

Umm. Who is externalizing what cost by leaving things alone.

Simply forcing suppliers and service providers to take on more responsibilities and cost is not a healthy externalization of cost.

So forcing busy charities/businesses to have sophisticated systems to accept payment as opposed to a QR code printed on paper is healthy how? I really don't follow your line of thinking.

[murraypaul]

That is called freedom.  Freedom doesn't mean people always doing what you WANT them to do, thats easy.
In fact it often means people doing something you disagree with, freedom of speech means someone having the freedom to say things you might find hurtful or offensive.

Yes freedom can be scary.  Freedom can mean you are inconvenienced.  Freedom can make you question if your choice is worth it.

So once again why are you so afraid of freedom?

And I could turn every single one of those questions back at those favouring this patch.
The difference is that you are actively trying to stop me doing the things that you don't want me to do, that might inconvenience you. I'm not trying to stop you reusing addresses whenever you want. So which of us is trying to restrict freedom again?