As others may have mentioned, wouldn't this practice completely eliminate sites like FaucetBox (and with it a significant amount of faucets)?
In my opinion, faucets and platforms like FaucetBox are a great tool for introducing people to bitcoin. Without them I think getting started in bitcoin becomes much more difficult. Some of you feel that the security implications are severe enough to warrant mandating more complex requirements on address management, but I think others here aren't so sure it's worth the tradeoff.
Topic: Should websites refuse to send coins to an already used address? (Read 4245 times)
December 01, 2015, 02:37:57 PM
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user?
I'm curious about your opinions!
I'm curious about your opinions!
I dont even see an option to change my address anymore in coinbase so I would be greatly upset if someone wouldnt send me my coins because I have to use that addy atm.
November 27, 2015, 05:41:33 AM
isnt their some sites like gambling sites that when you deposit you have to get the money back to that wallet? I remember a site saying dont send btc from a wallet you cant access cause we have to return the btc to that wallet in which we received it from.
November 25, 2015, 03:36:01 PM
Well this is a very informative post. Just when I thought there were too many address, I know better now reading though it all. My practice is to change the addresses it can be a little complex at times to keep check of all. My suggestion and practice is to list them on a spreadsheet.
November 21, 2015, 12:36:14 PM
I don't see why they should do such a thing. Some people have their own personalised address, doing this would make those address obsolete. Also faucets pay users to a single address that plays the role of user's account. Also if you apply this, they won't be enough addresses for everyone until 2030.
There are 2^160 addresses, the sun will expire before bitcoin "runs out" of addresses.
It is best practices to not re-use addresses, but people are free to do as they wish. Some places may require a new one, others may not.
I was not aware there was so much available addresses. I think that 2^160 is enough for the whole humanity
. November 21, 2015, 11:45:02 AM
I don't see why they should do such a thing. Some people have their own personalised address, doing this would make those address obsolete. Also faucets pay users to a single address that plays the role of user's account. Also if you apply this, they won't be enough addresses for everyone until 2030.
There are 2^160 addresses, the sun will expire before bitcoin "runs out" of addresses.
It is best practices to not re-use addresses, but people are free to do as they wish. Some places may require a new one, others may not.
November 21, 2015, 08:28:16 AM
I don't see why they should do such a thing. Some people have their own personalised address, doing this would make those address obsolete. Also faucets pay users to a single address that plays the role of user's account. Also if you apply this, they won't be enough addresses for everyone until 2030.
November 21, 2015, 06:37:05 AM
Some websites create a new bitcoin address to deposit every time. Users can always change their bitcoin address on sites, even on bitcointalk. I don't think there is a reason to force the users. However, I agree with Delek and generation of bitcoin addresses should never be online.
November 19, 2015, 06:52:09 AM
I dont think they should do that.
This just would be so unuseful for payments made each week/month.
This just would be so unuseful for payments made each week/month.
November 04, 2015, 08:19:48 AM
Bitcoins address are used for sending and receiving bitcoins from one wallet to another, so I think Websites should send coins multiple times to one address as person may use same address twice for transaction. If websites don't do , people will obviously get loss, which is not correct. As bitcoins address are allotted to one wallet, and one wallet is usually to one person.
October 24, 2015, 07:44:04 PM
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user?
I'm curious about your opinions!
I'm curious about your opinions!
I don't want to be anonymous so I use the same address. Over and over and over.
Can you explain to me how this is harmful?
Don't tell me if everyone did this no one would be anonymous as that is not particularly harmful. IMO
I want a public repeatable addy.
I realize I can have a wallet with hundreds of addy's if I want or I can use one over and over and over if I want.
I suppose some people want to remain hidden via changing of addresses so let them change every time. Or let them have a common address that repeats over and over and over plus a set of hidden multi addresses.
October 24, 2015, 04:04:48 PM
reuse also harms _other_ users in Bitcoin, who do care about privacy, and this degrades the fungibility of coins; since coins which are linked to this or that party are clearly different, and differently valuable than coins which are linked to other parties or are not linked.
If that's so harmful for Bitcoin why there's was never prohibited in Core?, I mean, the address reuse should be disabled if you are 100% right. 
Btw, how do we can have working donation addresses this way? Only using it for sending the inputs to another random addresses?
"Mined addresses" (vanitygen) are harmful then too?
This is very shocking for me.
October 24, 2015, 03:16:26 PM
Two more.questions regarding to that:
1) It was known how to generate a new address without a ptivate key back in 2009? If I'm right, this comes from a modern BIP (deterministic wallets)
I invented it in 2011: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.239768 as a response to people reusing addresses because they didn't want to have private keys online. It was later standardized as BIP32.1) It was known how to generate a new address without a ptivate key back in 2009? If I'm right, this comes from a modern BIP (deterministic wallets)
Quote
2) I don't care about privacy, I prefer to have a working Donation address all the time rather than being 100% a ghost. :p
You may not currently care, and its your right to screw over your future self (which you may well be doing)-- but reuse also harms _other_ users in Bitcoin, who do care about privacy, and this degrades the fungibility of coins; since coins which are linked to this or that party are clearly different, and differently valuable than coins which are linked to other parties or are not linked. 
October 23, 2015, 10:42:37 PM
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user?
I'm curious about your opinions!
I'm curious about your opinions!
Websites don't need to babysit it's users and worry about their privacy and the security concerns of re-using an address which as of now afaik are none cmiiw and I don't think there is any need for websites to implement a warning or any such feature, maybe in future when we have quantum computers we need to worry about such things.
October 23, 2015, 08:11:58 PM
Quote from: gmaxwell
New addresses can be generated without generating new private keys.
Monero, for example, has no address reuse at all in the blockchain-- it's required for the prevention of double spending there. It seems to do okay with it. The original bitcoin software never addresses w/ pay-to-ip; and even with addresses in use it the practice of reusing is somewhat inexplicable from a technology standpoint: it _really_ screws up your privacy along with that of people you transact with, and you can't reliably tell which of the payments you had outstanding were confirmed.... I think if it had been realized that people would behave the way they do, it likely would have been prohibited in the Bitcoin system from the start.
Two more.questions regarding to that:Monero, for example, has no address reuse at all in the blockchain-- it's required for the prevention of double spending there. It seems to do okay with it. The original bitcoin software never addresses w/ pay-to-ip; and even with addresses in use it the practice of reusing is somewhat inexplicable from a technology standpoint: it _really_ screws up your privacy along with that of people you transact with, and you can't reliably tell which of the payments you had outstanding were confirmed.... I think if it had been realized that people would behave the way they do, it likely would have been prohibited in the Bitcoin system from the start.
1) It was known how to generate a new address without a ptivate key back in 2009? If I'm right, this comes from a modern BIP (deterministic wallets)
2) I don't care about privacy, I prefer to have a working Donation address all the time rather than being 100% a ghost. :p
October 23, 2015, 03:46:37 PM
Reuse of an address is the sole business of its owner. It's a matter of choice, for most people simplicity is the most important.
Pedantically, the reuse of address harms third parties... and the decision to send coins is the sole business of the sender. I don't think you can answer this questions with simplistic reductions to arguments about free choice: there are multiple people involved in the question, and their free choices may conflict.I may sound paranoid, but the creation of a new address shouldn't never be done online and automatically. Creating a new private key every time you spend gives me chills.
New addresses can be generated without generating new private keys.Monero, for example, has no address reuse at all in the blockchain-- it's required for the prevention of double spending there. It seems to do okay with it. The original bitcoin software never addresses w/ pay-to-ip; and even with addresses in use it the practice of reusing is somewhat inexplicable from a technology standpoint: it _really_ screws up your privacy along with that of people you transact with, and you can't reliably tell which of the payments you had outstanding were confirmed.... I think if it had been realized that people would behave the way they do, it likely would have been prohibited in the Bitcoin system from the start.
[I make these points as points of correctness, not to further argue it-- I think warning is more prudent, and will also have the effect of educating on this matter).
October 23, 2015, 03:39:38 PM
The website obviously should not refuse it, in my opinion. That's basically refusing a withdrawal... And that could raise suspicion and it's just not the right thing to do. That would also be discriminating Bitcoin addresses...
I'm definitely thumbs up for a warning tho
I'm definitely thumbs up for a warning tho
October 23, 2015, 01:54:11 PM
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user?
I'm curious about your opinions!
I'm curious about your opinions!
Reuse of an address is the sole business of its owner. It's a matter of choice, for most people simplicity is the most important.
So imho, while talking about a coin that's about freedom.. asking about banning / blocking the freedom of choice is absurd.
Hence my answer is clearly NO! No blocking!
A warning can be done, because it helps the users learn and get more aware of what their choices mean. But that's all.
Privacy matters a lot to me but so does free will. This answer seems appropriate.
October 23, 2015, 10:44:49 AM
I think most of us know that address reuse is a bad idea and it's better to use a unique one for every transactions to avoid security and privacy issues. If a website owner accepts bitcoin deposits and a user wants to withdraw coins to an address which was already used in the past, should there be a warning or even an error message or would that be too annoying for the user?
I'm curious about your opinions!
I'm curious about your opinions!
Reuse of an address is the sole business of its owner. It's a matter of choice, for most people simplicity is the most important.
So imho, while talking about a coin that's about freedom.. asking about banning / blocking the freedom of choice is absurd.
Hence my answer is clearly NO! No blocking!
A warning can be done, because it helps the users learn and get more aware of what their choices mean. But that's all.
October 23, 2015, 10:32:39 AM
I think that the wallets should have a way to automatically generate a new address each time so the average Joe doesn't get an headache and can still enjoy the increased privacy of not reusing addresses, but still have to option to reuse an address if you want to. Overall we need to simplify the functionality of stuff like this thinking on the average consumer which will not understand (and will not bother) with anything deeper that isn't clicking send, receive and whatnot.
Jump to: