If reusing addresses is a bad idea then why...

[BurtW]

I think the whole thing about reusing addresses is just a precautionary measure to make it safer, but I don't think it's something you need to worry about.

Why?  Explain yourself.

I explained in detail above why address reuse is a bad idea and hurts Bitcoin, the idea of Bitcoin, the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin, etc.

Do the same with your off the cuff comment.

I really don't see how it's realistically a problem at all.

Then you obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about.

[1986]

I think the whole thing about reusing addresses is just a precautionary measure to make it safer, but I don't think it's something you need to worry about.

Why?  Explain yourself.

I explained in detail above why address reuse is a bad idea and hurts Bitcoin, the idea of Bitcoin, the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin, etc.

Do the same with your off the cuff comment.

I really don't see how it's realistically a problem at all.

Then you obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Please briefly explain to me why it's a problem, and merely for 'privacy' reasons isnt a problem.

[BowieMan]

I think the whole thing about reusing addresses is just a precautionary measure to make it safer, but I don't think it's something you need to worry about.

Why?  Explain yourself.

I explained in detail above why address reuse is a bad idea and hurts Bitcoin, the idea of Bitcoin, the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin, etc.

Do the same with your off the cuff comment.

I really don't see how it's realistically a problem at all.

Then you obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Nah, it isn't that big of a problem in certain cases. If you just want to collect donations that you'd have to declare anyways, why not gather them in a single wallet. They didn't expect Bitcoin to become so big and just put up a single address... so what?

[edd]

You make some good points, BurtW, but some organizations, especially those receiving donations, appreciate the opportunity for transparency that the blockchain offers. Granted, it requires comprising privacy measures to a certain extent and everyone should be aware of that, but it might be preferable for accountability purposes in some cases.

I guess I agree with you overall, I would just put it this way: "Don't reuse an address or send to a static address without educating yourself on how it might potentially undermine the privacy of yourself and others."

[Omikifuse]

Using multiple addresses is only theoritecally less secure than using only one for multiple transactions. Any way you would expect way more than a lifetime to crack your wallet.

But if you put your private keys in risky situations(connected to computers with internet, at reach of other people that might have the idea to stole it, etc..), sooner or later the change of your keys being compromissed will be high, then it might be a good idea change address from time to time.
 

[Mobius]

Using multiple addresses is only theoritecally less secure than using only one for multiple transactions. Any way you would expect way more than a lifetime to crack your wallet.

But if you put your private keys in risky situations(connected to computers with internet, at reach of other people that might have the idea to stole it, etc..), sooner or later the change of your keys being compromissed will be high, then it might be a good idea change address from time to time.

When you use a new address each time you send a TX you will generally use the same wallet. You also do not need to actually send a TX to potentially compromise a wallet if you have it open/loaded on a computer that is potentially compromised/risky.