Is this really a problem in practice?
Only if you use a very, very shitty wallet. I remember reading this case (although it was about "R values" instead of "nonce k").
Topic: Address reuse (Bitcoin Core) (Read 207 times)
Only if you use a very, very shitty wallet. I remember reading this case (although it was about "R values" instead of "nonce k").
The r values mentioned is actually related to the k nonce, as this topic. You get the r value by multiplying (aka. Elliptic Curve Multiplication) of the k value with the secp256k1 generator point. Hence, the repeated k led to the repeated r.The Android wallet fiasco is another big incident. This wouldn't happen with well known and developed wallets.
There shouldn't be a security problem with address re-use on Bitcoin Core because it's not using a deterministic nonce inside the signatures. It's using a completely randomly-generated nonce for all address types.
But even the wallets that do use a deterministic nonce most likely use RFC6979, which is still quite hard to break.
Bitcoin Core uses deterministic nonce for all the signing as of 0.10.0.But even the wallets that do use a deterministic nonce most likely use RFC6979, which is still quite hard to break.
Probably as difficult as having to break the nonce without any information. If its correctly implementing RFC6979, then k is generated deterministic by both your private key and your data, which means it doesn't depend on CSPRNG at all.
Is it safe to use an address twice (privacy excluded)?
It should be fine if you don't care about privacy, but I would still suggest doing good address management and labeling for all transactions.Fees could be another problem so doing consolidation when fees are low is a good idea.
I think Silent Payments is a good alternative for generating new address each time you need to receive payment from someone.
Is this really a problem in practice?
Only if you use a very, very shitty wallet. I remember reading this case (although it was about "R values" instead of "nonce k"). 
There shouldn't be a security problem with address re-use on Bitcoin Core because it's not using a deterministic nonce inside the signatures. It's using a completely randomly-generated nonce for all address types.
But even the wallets that do use a deterministic nonce most likely use RFC6979, which is still quite hard to break. Not so much if it is using other pseudo-random techniques.
But even the wallets that do use a deterministic nonce most likely use RFC6979, which is still quite hard to break. Not so much if it is using other pseudo-random techniques.
I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
- If the k is random but reused, it will leak your private key if you create more than one signature using it (that includes message signing, creating and signing more than one transaction that includes address reuse).
- If the k is not random (is weak), it will leak your private key on first use. It doesn't take reuse in this case to leak the key.
Such a problem never existed in bitcoin core though. And these days all popular wallets including core use RFC6979 to deterministically derive the ephemeral key (k) for signing that eliminates that issue altogether.
I think they should change the UI/UX of the receive tab in Bitcoin Core, I think they should never have changed the design of the tab, just compare how much more practical it was to receive to a new address or reuse an old one in the old UI, the old addresses were listed in the same tab, we could generate a new QR code from any address (with a new address or reused).
You got the point of the receiving tab's UI, the goal is to advocate the use of a new address in every transaction for the user's privacy.Think about it, is it better to set a default behavior that results with better privacy for those who don't understand how privacy works;
Or set the default to reuse address that could be bad for the user's privacy?
People who know its consequences and know that it's reusable will reuse addresses whether their wallet's receive tab is giving then new addresses every time.
On the other hand, people who don't know that they can reuse their addresses shouldn't be advised to reuse their address just because it can be reused.
For the latest GUI: If the user needs to re-use an address, he can just open one of his invoice and copy that invoice's address, much like in the old version.
Or go to his receiving address list in "Window->Receiving Addresses".
For greater privacy, it's best to use bitcoin addresses only once. You can change addresses as often as you want using Options->Change Your Address..
Wallets like Bitcoin Core practically force the user to use new addresses every time the receive button is pressed by the user, but as others have said, using new addresses for each receive is a matter of privacy, you are not necessarily vulnerable to changing signatures to exfiltrate your private key.
I think they should change the UI/UX of the receive tab in Bitcoin Core, I think they should never have changed the design of the tab, just compare how much more practical it was to receive to a new address or reuse an old one in the old UI, the old addresses were listed in the same tab, we could generate a new QR code from any address (with a new address or reused).
Electrum unfortunately followed the same path, adding the name "invoices" for on-chain receiving with invoices with expiration dates. Unfortunately, this only causes more confusion than it helps. For example, newbies mistakenly think that addresses created by invoices with expiration dates will be canceled or invalid.
I think they should change the UI/UX of the receive tab in Bitcoin Core, I think they should never have changed the design of the tab, just compare how much more practical it was to receive to a new address or reuse an old one in the old UI, the old addresses were listed in the same tab, we could generate a new QR code from any address (with a new address or reused).
Electrum unfortunately followed the same path, adding the name "invoices" for on-chain receiving with invoices with expiration dates. Unfortunately, this only causes more confusion than it helps. For example, newbies mistakenly think that addresses created by invoices with expiration dates will be canceled or invalid.
I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
Is this really a problem in practice?
Yes, that's why clients like Bitcoin Core use pseudo random values that for that reason.Is this really a problem in practice?
Ref: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp#L208-L234
Reusing address doesn't necessarily mean that every transaction that you'll create will use the same nonce when producing signatures.
An address that you reuse may be a representation of the same script but it has nothing to do with the generation of k value when spending the multiple UTXOs linked to it.
Check the reference above for the function Bitcoin Core uses.
Is it safe to use an address twice (privacy excluded)?
Yes.I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
Is this really a problem in practice?
I make a test transaction for new addresses to make sure that they work correctly.
I use Bitcoin Core 27.1.
That is true. If your nonce is known, then you can calculate the private key from your signature. However, Bitcoin Core is open source and a simple bug like this would probably be caught on early and should never make it into a stable release.Is this really a problem in practice?
I make a test transaction for new addresses to make sure that they work correctly.
I use Bitcoin Core 27.1.
The problem concerning address reuse, which is often blown out of proportion is the possibility of repeated nonce in the signature. When nonce are being repeated, you can calculate the private key from two different signature. This is only in the case where nonce are non-random and being reused across multiple transactions. This is a problem with poorly implemented CSPRNG with certain poorly designed wallets in the past. However, Bitcoin Core uses RFC 6979 to ensure every signature is distinct and deterministic. As such, the chances of repeated nonce is zero.
Is it safe to use an address twice (privacy excluded)?
Is this really a problem in practice?
If you say, you don't care about privacy (privacy excluded), you can use a same address many time. It's address reuse.Is this really a problem in practice?
It practically is not good for your privacy and in order to get better privacy, you need to use Bitcoin change addresses.
Some advice is here https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/privacy-o-meter
Quote
General guidelines for sending BTC transactions
Blockchair can not help you improve the privacy of your transactions but here are some basic recommendations on how to stay anonymous on the Bitcoin network
Don't send round numbers
Don't send round amounts. Instead of sending 0.1 BTC, send 0.10125
Use Bitcoin Mixers
Mixers add an additional layer of privacy to a transaction to avoid exposing user identities.
Avoid reusing wallets
Don't send your Bitcoin change to the same address you use for sending bitcoins.
Avoid including many of your addresses in one transaction
Any time you can, try not to send BTC from your various Bitcoin addresses.
Avoid using "send everything" option
If you are withdrawing funds from an exchange, it is okay.
If you're moving funds to another wallet, do not transfer the whole amount to another address. It greatly compromises your privacy.
Blockchair can not help you improve the privacy of your transactions but here are some basic recommendations on how to stay anonymous on the Bitcoin network
Don't send round numbers
Don't send round amounts. Instead of sending 0.1 BTC, send 0.10125
Use Bitcoin Mixers
Mixers add an additional layer of privacy to a transaction to avoid exposing user identities.
Avoid reusing wallets
Don't send your Bitcoin change to the same address you use for sending bitcoins.
Avoid including many of your addresses in one transaction
Any time you can, try not to send BTC from your various Bitcoin addresses.
Avoid using "send everything" option
If you are withdrawing funds from an exchange, it is okay.
If you're moving funds to another wallet, do not transfer the whole amount to another address. It greatly compromises your privacy.
Spending your Bitcoin
Is it safe to use an address twice (privacy excluded)?
I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
Is this really a problem in practice?
I make a test transaction for new addresses to make sure that they work correctly.
I use Bitcoin Core 27.1.
I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
Is this really a problem in practice?
I make a test transaction for new addresses to make sure that they work correctly.
I use Bitcoin Core 27.1.
You can reuse the addresses as many times as you want. In practice no one is going to be able to derive your private key just because you are reusing the public key that belongs to it. People say to not reuse private addresses for privacy, since they can see how you keep adding funds to the same address. You could always mix the address after you have a considerable amount and want to hide it from public eye.
Is it safe to use an address twice (privacy excluded)?
I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
Is this really a problem in practice?
I make a test transaction for new addresses to make sure that they work correctly.
I use Bitcoin Core 27.1.
I have read that if the random nonce k used for the ECDSA signature is not chosen at random then someone can calculate the private key.
Is this really a problem in practice?
I make a test transaction for new addresses to make sure that they work correctly.
I use Bitcoin Core 27.1.
Jump to: