Topic: Miners: Time to deprioritise/filter address reuse! - page 7. (Read 51855 times)

As I said, you cannot do some changes to a billion dollar related project just because you think it's correct. The side effect may kill a project before you see any positive effect. That's why backward compatibility is so important in software industry.

Quote from: AtlasONo

: What makes it "horribly insecure" ?

A permanent  list of addresses and times is created for that physical location.

Imagine a customer is careless and visits daily , using a address with other large transactions. That high value wallet can be ambushed.

Just about every in person retail merchant I've ever seen.

Quote from such a merchant "I like taking payments directly versus using a third-party processor like BitPay or Coinbase because it is more in the spirit of bitcoin. Why fill out an application and give up all your personal info when you don't have to? Bitcoin is your money." Is bitcoin our money or is it the miners money?

What makes it "horribly insecure" other than having the transactions visible?

For some reason I was thinking that using a seed->prng, and sequential nonce would end up with a subset of the 2^160 (#?) key pairs.

If the entire world economy used a new key pair for every digital transaction (the rate of which is increasing exponentially) for the next 50 years... where would we end up in terms of collision probability? I dunno, i think i'm way off topic here. We can let this sidebar fall away now...

See, e.g., the Subway shop in Bratislava, Slovakia mentioned above, and at http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qrp1h/subway_accepting_bitcoins_in_slovakia_bratislava/ and also the discussion above around non-profits and other entities wishing to conduct transparent finance on the blockchain.

What do you mean limit the usable address space?  There is no change in the number of possible addresses.

Yup.

Just thought of something... how does the BIP32 protocol addendum limit the usable address space based on whatever seed is generating the string of future keys? Reading the wiki pages now, will edit this post if i find an answer. I understand this might be nonsensical.

What merchant uses a static address for all customers?   Horribly insecure and prone to problems.  Anyone that foolish should just use a service like bitpay and have it done right by someone competent.

But isn't that the exact point? That it would start to be a hindrance to merchants so they'd stop reusing addresses?

Which is why I do not like options 2 and 3. Why? Because there may not be enough time to install the security system before the house is burgled. Option 4 is more to my liking by the way. One thing to note is that the proposed payment protocol will address the many of arguments against what is being proposed here.

No...

Options 2 and 3 are more like "I don't really want to pay for a security system, but if people are going to start burgling my house, I want one."

FWIW, I personally am in the "We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now." boat.

Eligius are only testing this out. It's only one pool. It's not absolute, just preferential. Mining Dynamics 101. Find. Read. Learn. Understand. Shush.

It's not just discourage as you think, it's forbidding in some scenario. If a merchant use a fix address to receive payment , it can only receive 6 payments per hour. Basically makes the service useless. It's customers have to wait forever if there're more than 6 payments per hour.

To quote the termite example. It is more like I am not ok with allowing you to deliver 500,000 termite larvae to my house; however if you do I will not call the exterminator even though the termites will demolish the house. The trouble with saying "no but" is that more often than not it means "yes".

Not yet, relax for the moment. None of this will matter for a while yet, till then, get clued up. I've explained it all below.


Nope, instead it solves them.

There's a new wallet feature, Armory has used this idea since very early on. The idea is to have the addresses worked out in advance, but not just in a list. Instead, and you should be able to guess this, you use cryptography to define the list. You get the ability to create Master Addresses, and each Master Address basically gives you an infinite list of addresses for receiving funds at your wallet. You create yourself a Master Address for mining with, and give that to the pool. Then you only have to BACK UP ONCE. It's pretty neat, I've used Armory's version of this already. Create as many Master Keys as you like, just like normal addresses. So that whoever you give a Master Address can't see your whole wallet and every address in it, they can only see the ones you gave it to them for in the first place.


Problem is the idea for colour lists that track our coins. It comes down to the old theory of money stuff. Someone can look at one of these tracking lists, look at my BTC address, then look at your BTC address, and decide they'd prefer your coins to mine. Because mine are on a list that says they were ransomed from a grandma. This makes Bitcoin less money-like, and if yours or my government want to kill Bitcoin, they can start by creating laws that say "everyone must use addresses that are on the list, otherwise they can't pay". It doesn't have to be in the BItcoin software, it can just be a list you can search on some website. If you get given listed coins, you say to the person paying you "Sorry, can't give you what you paid for, because you paid with dirty money. I can't spend this, because it's on the list. If you still want [whatever it is], you can pay with clean, listed BTC. I'm sending the dirty money to the dirty money collection & cleaning guys". Big problem. People don't want to use a system like that, BTC price goes down. People stop using it. Bye bye Bitcoin.

The lists are no good if we take steps. This is one out of many steps. If we concentrate on getting these things in place, and make them understood by everyone, the lists won't work. Hello Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is never anonymous, no matter how you use it.

Law enforcement can do forensics the same way they do with cash (actually, they can do better with Bitcoin).
This only buys you privacy - without it, everyone would be able to see everything you do.

"Lookup by address" is only less load than "lookup by bloom filter" if every node carries an address index (which adds to disk and memory requirements).
In any case, Bitcoin was designed with addresses being single-use, and it becomes unusable with too much reuse, so this side-topic is irrelevant.

Link please.  Nothing I have read about the payment protocol implies static addresses.

I have no flipping idea what anyone is talking about. Am I going to need to create new address everytime I get paid from my pool? Because that would be plain stupid. Please correct me in simple English because this is how I'm seeing it.

I recently lost all my coins because I created a new receiving address and didn't back it up. Wouldn't this create more similar problems?

I may be barking up the wrong tree here... but what gives? Bitcoin is fine the way it is.

Are you sure Bloom filter is the right solution? It creates more load on Bitcoin nodes than UTXOs-for-address queries would.