How many of you consolidate your bitcoins?

[Q7]

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

[sangaman]

Don't think this is really a good idea if you care at all about privacy since this indicates to the world that all consolidated coins are owned by the same person. Someone who knows one of the addresses you use or used could then track them and find how much bitcoin you have, what other addresses you've used, which addresses you've sent to and received from, etc....

[Sindelar1938]

I don't consolidate as a matter of principle
Lots of addresses with small coins that never talk to each other. Call it trading off privacy and convenience.

[Oscilson]

You can use the dust when the value of BTC rises. So there is no need to consolidate it

[twister]

I don't consolidate them into one address, I just use those to pay for the miner's fee when sending out a transaction and you can do this too instead of trying to gather all the left overs to one address just use them to pay the fee.

[countryfree]

I have a question: why should I consolidate my BTC?
I don't.

[BitUsher]

Typically not a good idea. Better idea would be to diversify how they are invested and stored.

[bornil267645]

After the Mt Gox incident, people should be more cautious.

[pawel7777]

I don't really see the point to consolidate bitcoins on a regular basis. I'd only do it if I needed to.

Don't let this habit turn into obsessive compulsive disorder 

[Elwar]

I consolidated all of my 217 kBTC into this single address:

https://blockchain.info/address/1JoktQJhCzuCQkt3GnQ8Xddcq4mUgNyXEa

[dsly]

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

[bitcoinmining]

I consolidated all of my 217 kBTC into this single address:

https://blockchain.info/address/1JoktQJhCzuCQkt3GnQ8Xddcq4mUgNyXEa

Hahahaha 

We should know that one is you Elwar, we were talking about it last few days 

[Bizmark13]

Better idea would be to diversify how they are invested and stored.

Security-wise, I gotta agree. If I had a single address with all of my BTC contained inside it - and if it were to be hacked due to some lapse in security, I would have lost all my bitcoins. If I had multiple addresses with a small amount of bitcoins in each and they were all stored separately, then a hack would only affect a small percentage of my total bitcoin wealth.

Even bitcoins held in cold storage can be lost, stolen, destroyed by fire, etc.

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

I always thought smaller-sized transactions (i.e. transactions from addresses with a small number of outputs) were accepted more quickly by miners and required a smaller fee.

[wolfYella]

I consolidated all of my 217 kBTC into this single address:

https://blockchain.info/address/1JoktQJhCzuCQkt3GnQ8Xddcq4mUgNyXEa

IIRC this was the address that bitstamp sent all their bitcoin to as part of their audit. (I assume you are joking).

As mentioned above it is not good to consolidate your bitcoin into one address as it affects your privacy. The amount you would potentially end up spending in TX fees is not that great to warrant this kind of effort anyway

[JimboToronto]

My only consolidated coins are the ones I keep at an exchange and the ones in my spending wallet, which can be linked to my identity.

All the rest of my coins were purchased anonymously off-exchange directly into paper wallets and never exposed to the internet.

I mine directly into paper wallets but because they are associated with my IP address I don't consider them anonymous. I also consider my Beer Fund wallet identifiable for the same reason.

I won't even check the status of my fully anonymous coins on blockchain.info except through a fully anonymous netbook on a public wifi hotspot, using a throwaway USB wifi MAC address.

I have several dozen paper wallets, each containing between 0.01 and 10 bitcoins.

I don't believe in putting all my eggs in one basket. I also dislike giving any information to foreign governments or corporations.

[Gronthaing]

^ haven't you done just that?

I just leave the coins where they are as much as possible, except for larger amounts I plan to store.

[JimboToronto]

^ haven't you done just that?

I don't think so, other than stating that I have some anonymous wallets.

[wenwen478]

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

NO,  II have not done  like you. and i only have a little coins

[Q7]

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

If you constantly spend your bitcoin and you don't use change address, each output that doesn't consume the whole coin will leave dust amount. Eventually these will cost you more the next time you decide to use it as the tx size kb will increase.

[lyth0s]

Well I'm definitely one of them. Also considered a freak. Why I say that is because I usually make it a routine (better word compulsory) to transfer between addresses and usually I try to keep the transaction size small (<1000kb) by having three transactions max received per address. Also this is done by waiting for the transactions to age (usually about 1 week) before I can transfer for low fee or sometime for zero fee and then consolidate to combine into a single output.

Any of you guys do that or you will just leave it there?

What is the advantage of keeping the transaction size of a smaller value?

If you constantly spend your bitcoin and you don't use change address, each output that doesn't consume the whole coin will leave dust amount. Eventually these will cost you more the next time you decide to use it as the tx size kb will increase.

I prefer some amount of privacy vs transaction size. And to be quite honest, as long as the transaction isn't sending dust you can send pretty large transactions for the same 0.0001 fee that you would for a very small transaction. I always send the 0.0001 fee, even if I could get away with making it completely free.....support the network with those 3-4 cents