Quote
Quote
You mean, when you click File -> Receiving Addresses your old addresses aren't listed?
Yes can you tell me are those address still there.
Can I still receive coins on those old address ?
Topic: Bitcoin Core 0.9.0: Reuse an existing receiving address (not recommended) (Read 1721 times)
March 31, 2014, 06:06:23 AM
Yes can you tell me are those address still there.
Can I still receive coins on those old address ?
March 30, 2014, 07:17:57 PM
Quote
Quote
You mean, when you click File -> Receiving Addresses your old addresses aren't listed?
Yes can you tell me are those address still there.
Can I still receive coins on those old address ?
March 29, 2014, 10:24:58 PM
Quote
Upgraded to version 0.9
I don’t see my old bitcoin addresses. Are they all there or lost ?
Since I have used those old address everywhere do I still receive btc that belonged to my old ones
How to make sure ? Can anyone tell me on this
You mean, when you click File -> Receiving Addresses your old addresses aren't listed? I don’t see my old bitcoin addresses. Are they all there or lost ?
Since I have used those old address everywhere do I still receive btc that belonged to my old ones
How to make sure ? Can anyone tell me on this
March 28, 2014, 08:10:54 AM
My lay understanding address reuse is not great for two reasons:
1. Privacy/anonymity gets degraded with address reuse as people may be able to start to figure out who you are based on linked transactions.
2. I understand it reduces security slightly as soon as you spend from an address the public key becomes available. Now *if* (big if) the public/private key relationship is compromised any public key is compromised. So if you reuse an address this is then exploitable. Because if you've never spent from an address the public key is protected behind a hash.
So in practice mainly 1 but 2 might be problematic in future if a hole is discovered in the cryptography linking public and private keys.
1. Privacy/anonymity gets degraded with address reuse as people may be able to start to figure out who you are based on linked transactions.
2. I understand it reduces security slightly as soon as you spend from an address the public key becomes available. Now *if* (big if) the public/private key relationship is compromised any public key is compromised. So if you reuse an address this is then exploitable. Because if you've never spent from an address the public key is protected behind a hash.
So in practice mainly 1 but 2 might be problematic in future if a hole is discovered in the cryptography linking public and private keys.
March 28, 2014, 06:04:27 AM
Can someone tell me why this disclaimer? I can not figure out why reusing addresses might not be safe.
Moreover, if indeed it was not sure, I think there would be a design problem in the protocol.
Eg. it's hard to imagine a future in which my employer can pay me in bitcoin and I must tell him a new address for the salary every month!
Well, probably in an hypothetical future like this there will be the chance to set up a monthly automated payment request to my employer.
Do you think the disclaimer can be interpreted in this way?
Finally, services that are based on a payout address to redistribute any wealth generated how they should adapt?
Thanks ;-)
Moreover, if indeed it was not sure, I think there would be a design problem in the protocol.
Eg. it's hard to imagine a future in which my employer can pay me in bitcoin and I must tell him a new address for the salary every month!
Well, probably in an hypothetical future like this there will be the chance to set up a monthly automated payment request to my employer.
Do you think the disclaimer can be interpreted in this way?
Finally, services that are based on a payout address to redistribute any wealth generated how they should adapt?
Thanks ;-)
Jump to: