just want to know where in the source code i should change such that my wallet only ever has 1 address.

Why would you want to do that?

That seems like a bad idea.

If you really want to do it, then take a look at the code for "coin control" and you can see there where it allows you to choose where the "change" from the transaction goes.  Force that to always use the same address, and force your wallet to always use coin control, and you should have pretty much what you're trying to do.

why you need this feature, if you need just 1 address in 1 wallet then don't create many of them, and whenever you need create a new wallet with new address,you don't need to go through codes for this

found it


just in case someone else asks

considering the sensitive nature of what this will eventually lead to, i am actually on the right track.

first i have to create a test environment for my ideas, and at least get it to work with a single address per wallet, before i try scaling it to multiple addresses in a single wallet

this is far from a production wallet, i have the idea, i have the math, now to get a working ALPHA  

eventually, it will have all that stuff returned to normal, but why try solve 2^5+e before i can get 1+1 right?

Exchange or online wallets which may try to maintain the balance of the customer on chain. It may also allow customers to get their private key.

Is this in response to my question? And did you read my reasons for wanting it that way?


Happy New Year everyone

it doesnt follow because you do not know what i am trying to do. I (!wont) have scaling issues because the BTC blockchain has already shown it is capable of handling the expected number of transactions per hour. before going after what i am trying to do, maybe help out , and if i shoot myself in the foot, then so be it. But for now, please , since i am trying to get somewhere  how about giving me the directions i want.

While I do agree with the general principle of your statement, I would say that there are legitimate reasons why reusing an address does make sense (at least from a business standpoint). f

The first reason would be when a person/entity is owed a specific amount of bitcoin (measured in bitcoin) (either because they borrowed money, because they were provided goods/services or otherwise), but cannot pay the entire amount all at once (either because of financial difficulties - eg they do not have the money, because of the terms of the arrangements or otherwise *this applies mostly to the former). Since it is not always possible to accurately determine the "sending" address of a transaction (although most of the time it is), it may not be feasible for the person who owes money to get a new address to send to via an automated fashion for each payment and later proving they sent payment via signing a message from the 'sending' address. It may not be economically efficient for an entity to manually provide a new address every time a debtor is able to make a payment. The solution would be to give the debtor a single address to send payment to and the debt would be considered "paid" once 10 BTC worth of inputs are sent to such address (assuming a total amount owed of 10 BTC.

Another reason to reuse an address would be to maintain the integrity of a charity (this is the primary use, but other uses may be applicable as well). As I am sure you are well aware of, websites get hacked and domains get transferred without the consent of the owner of such domain more often then they should be (this may actually be somewhat of a threat to bitcoin). If potential donors had to contact, say the American Red Cross every time they wanted to make a donation then the money would not make it to the Red Cross in the event their website gets hacked (and the hacker directs donors to send bitcoin to address that the hackers control). Using a different address for each transaction in this case would result in donors sending money to the wrong entity. While traditionally, an honest trading partner would send the promised goods/services in the event they direct someone to send funds to an address they do not control, this does not apply with charities because they will use the specific funds received by the donor for the charitable cause. If there is a specific donation address for a charity that is well known then having a charity's website getting hacked would not cause this kind of problem.

While I agree that both of these scenarios would cause a lesser amount of privacy, I would argue that the benefits gained by using a single address in these scenarios (especially the latter) outweigh the drawbacks.

How do you import private keys without getting one more address added to the wallet in Multibit?
Its always a problem for me.