Topic: Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse! - page 2. (Read 51855 times)

There is no official client, or official anything. Official implies centralisation.

Address reuse takes away that choice from other users.
Using a unique address per transaction, as Bitcoin was always intended to be used, allows each user to choose for themselves whether they want their transaction record public or not.

There are no source addresses.
Addresses are only ever used to receive.

Yes, if you use Bitcoin wrong, this will make your transactions take slightly longer to confirm.
That's intentional.
I will continue to work closely with wizkid057 to ensure Eligius gets support for BIP32 as soon as possible.

Future software versions implementing BIP32 should be able to notify you based on the recurring invoice id used.

Does not look like the official client supports that. I mean there is no automatic way of doing it. I am not running some additional software. You give me and address to send the coins to, I send them to that address. If I want to receive coins from you, I will give you my address (the same one). If you somehow manage to turn it into some other address while making sure the coins reach me - great.

OTOH, I guess this patch could be circumvented by pre-generating as many addresses as I need (transactions per block) and giving them on a round-robin basis. Which still requires giving possible a different address each time someone wants to send coins to me. OTOH, I could just give a list of them and ask to choose one at random. That is static, but still inconvenient (and most would choose the first one in the list anyway).

It is inconvenient, no matter how you look at it.

However, I believe that everyone should decide that for themselves instead of having it basically forced on them (yea, yea, "miners can choose with transactions to include in the block, so there will be at least one miner who run an unaltered client, so your transaction will be included some time before the end of the universe" but it is effectively forcing me to do this).
Just like millions of people use Facebook and share everything about themselves (I am not one of them).

However, this affects not only the destination but also source addresses as I understand it. So, if I have mined a lot of coins (and on Eligius, all coins go to a single address, can't really change it, can I?) I have to wait longer if I want to make a few smaller purchases? Actually, same applies to coins bought in an exchange - unless I want to spend time manually withdrawing to different addresses.

I like the current system where I can keep coins received by mining in one address (so if I see the notification that 1P5p... received coins I know it is from mining, 175... means LabRat paid dividends etc).

Using bitcoin correctly won't stop your government from tracking you, and isn't intended to.
What it can do, is stop everyone else from tracking you.

I want to reuse the addresses. A lot. Actually, I do not want to generate new addresses at all if possible. This way the backup of my wallet does not need updating.
So, my mining goes to one address, some other received coins go to another. That's it. I may even generate a vanity address in the future. I am also running Bitcoin-qt without TOR.

Why do you want to force me to use different addresses?

Using multiple addresses won't make it impossible to track me, maybe not even harder. The mining pool knows my IP and my address, so if my government manages to extract that information from them, they got me. It won't change anything if I change the address - the new one will be linked to the old one via the same pool and because some transactions will have both addresses as the source (if I send more coins than there are in one address). So, those all addresses can be linked to me with some work.

I have two ways of receiving coins - mining (address->IP link in the pool) and buying (address->name, IP, bank account link in the exchange). If I sell the coins, there is another link. So, if the government wants to track me they sure can.

I notice this change isn't mentioned in the news on the Eligius site...

So , do you know where this is going to lead?
Pools forcing people to  "x" because government is planning "y".
You open the door to pools abuse combined with government abuse , both having some stupid "reasons" to do so.

indubitably

Interesting, you clearly misunderstand the point of the thread and then it seems that you are arguing that if govt powers FORCE people to do things then we as bitcoiners should do that also?

The FUD at the start of the first post ... since you seem to have not read it:

Or would you care to explain exactly what your argument there is?

Certainly makes no sense as it is.

FUD

No-one said "lets force everyone to accept this new culture against address re-use"

What happens when your friendly neighbourhood tax barons decide they must FORCE you to use ID VERIFIED PUBLIC KEYS. Then what, Mr. Anti-Coercion?

But they aren't forced to use this.  Without nearly universal adoption by pools, it appears to be more a mild suggestion than a use of force.

It is not about address reuse.  The issue is fungibility.

There are many posts above that explain the issue.  Just read them.

Try this one:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3588908

Then this one:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3589252

and the one after it for starters.

This entire thread is a gold mine for the issue at hand with good posts on all sides of the issue.

what's so bad about address reuse anyway?

How is ZeroCoin doing? I read they are going to start an alt coin and have the transaction size down to very reasonable 500B but they didn't answer my question if cpu use made similar progress.

For what it is worth, I was totally against this proposal as well.  This is one of the posts that convinced me this (fungibility) is  a critical issue:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3588908

Now I consider the proposal just a "baby step" in the right direction.  We actually need to implement BIP32 system wide and come up with even more ideas to make it as hard as possible to implement those ideas that are floating around that will destroy the fungible property of Bitcoin.

The battle over the fungibility of Bitcoin is the battle for Bitcoin itself.  If fungibility is destroyed then Bitcoin will eventually become just a footnote in history.

As I have said, if you remove the fungible nature of Bitcoin - as is being proposed - then Bitcoin becomes a collectible and is no longer money.

If you have any other/better ideas to help preserve fungibility then we need to hear them now! Please!

My thoughts, exactly. I've been trying to find real arguments for doing it now in this thread, but it looks like it is all FUD.