Pages:
Author

Topic: Something strange here.... - page 2. (Read 1967 times)

sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 254
May 07, 2013, 10:05:25 PM
#9
it was excluded because it breaks the absraction of a "wallet". users do not need to know what a change address is, nor do they need to know what inputs or outputs are. this is the same reason why paypal/ach/sepa transfers do not disclose their internal implementation details. having that feature in the client complicates application design, and adds the burden of wannabe power users asking for support.

Given the current system, we still have users, who know their way around blockchain.info or another block explorer but haven't learned the "change address" concept ("wannabe power users" as you would probably call them; I'm not that blunt), getting confused and, you guessed it, asking for support.

This may not be the place to delve into this, but to elaborate: If there were an internal implementation requirement that change addresses must be used, you are right that it should be abstracted from the user.  Unfortunately people have perfectly valid reasons to sidestep that abstraction by going to a third-party service that doesn't know what their change addresses are and therefore can't abstract it for them.  For this reason (and the fact that random change addresses are not a hard requirement; only semi privacy-enhancing), my argument was that we should consider abolishing change addresses by default and just send change back to one of the spending addresses.  This still has potential for confusion, but I think less than seeing a destination address that the client intentionally hides the very existence of.  At least the confusion will hopefully not be the panic of "some random address hijacked most of my coins when I sent a few!!  this address is not listed in my client anywhere, I have never seen it before, etc."

It is either a technical change like stopping use of random change addresses, or trying to teach people why it's good that their spent coins get shuffled into random addresses that they didn't create themselves and are currently discouraged from viewing.  Which is easier?  Does the average user even agree with the rationale of change addresses?
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
May 07, 2013, 07:28:34 PM
#8
And it looks like I put this in the wrong section to begin with.  Sorry about that, wasn't sure if it belonged here or there.

Well, at least in the debug console I can see what addresses exist in my wallet with "listaddressgroupings".
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
May 07, 2013, 07:28:19 PM
#7
That would make sense, if that address showed ANYWHERE in the bitcoin-qt install, but it doesn't.  That's why I'm confused.

The only way I could find the 1Dkd7... address to begin with was to go like I was going to sign a message or request a payment.  Seems odd the Address Book won't show your own address by default.

Yep, they are hidden on purpose, probably in a (misguided?) attempt to not confuse the user.  Every time I read a thread like this, I become more convinced that change addresses should be disabled by default.  Users who want the pseudo-anonymity offered by random change addresses, and who understand it, can re-enable it.

+1, it should be an option in the advanced settings.
legendary
Activity: 2058
Merit: 1431
May 07, 2013, 07:13:18 PM
#6
That would make sense, if that address showed ANYWHERE in the bitcoin-qt install, but it doesn't.  That's why I'm confused.

The only way I could find the 1Dkd7... address to begin with was to go like I was going to sign a message or request a payment.  Seems odd the Address Book won't show your own address by default.

Yep, they are hidden on purpose, probably in a (misguided?) attempt to not confuse the user.  Every time I read a thread like this, I become more convinced that change addresses should be disabled by default.  Users who want the pseudo-anonymity offered by random change addresses, and who understand it, can re-enable it.
it was excluded because it breaks the absraction of a "wallet". users do not need to know what a change address is, nor do they need to know what inputs or outputs are. this is the same reason why paypal/ach/sepa transfers do not disclose their internal implementation details. having that feature in the client complicates application design, and adds the burden of wannabe power users asking for support.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
May 07, 2013, 07:09:30 PM
#5
Yep, they are hidden on purpose, probably in a (misguided?) attempt to not confuse the user.  Every time I read a thread like this, I become more convinced that change addresses should be disabled by default.  Users who want the pseudo-anonymity offered by random change addresses, and who understand it, can re-enable it.

Huh, "change addresses".  Guess I missed that when I read up on things.

There any way to turn that off?  I'd rather it just use the one address on this install for everything, change included.

At least now I've got my Blockchain wallet (which actually has nothing in it) showing the correct total which includes the watch addresses I've added, after adding this change address in to it.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 254
May 07, 2013, 07:01:52 PM
#4
That would make sense, if that address showed ANYWHERE in the bitcoin-qt install, but it doesn't.  That's why I'm confused.

The only way I could find the 1Dkd7... address to begin with was to go like I was going to sign a message or request a payment.  Seems odd the Address Book won't show your own address by default.

Yep, they are hidden on purpose, probably in a (misguided?) attempt to not confuse the user.  Every time I read a thread like this, I become more convinced that change addresses should be disabled by default.  Users who want the pseudo-anonymity offered by random change addresses, and who understand it, can re-enable it.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
May 07, 2013, 06:57:50 PM
#3
That would make sense, if that address showed ANYWHERE in the bitcoin-qt install, but it doesn't.  That's why I'm confused.

The only way I could find the 1Dkd7... address to begin with was to go like I was going to sign a message or request a payment.  Seems odd the Address Book won't show your own address by default.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
May 07, 2013, 06:49:27 PM
#2
It is called "change" and the balance was sent to a "change address".
Bitcoin CAN ONLY spend entire outputs. 

You had an unspent output worth 0.20560192 BTC.  You wanted to spend 0.1 BTC

Your wallet created a tx spending 0.20560192 BTC.  0.1 BTC to the address you specified and 0.10560192 BTC back to another unused address in your wallet.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
May 07, 2013, 06:47:30 PM
#1
I'm trying to figure out what happened with this transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/45d3052208af765202197260a4e70986155d1480ab1f1a2cf38f4dbe7da35386

It was sent from Bitcoin-qt installed in a Fedora 18 virtual machine.  According to Bitcoin-qt, all it sent was the 0.1 BTC to the 1C9PZ... address.  I did not enter the 1PSv3... address or any amount to go to it.

What is really strange about this is the 0.20560192 BTC amount in the output was the amount I originally sent to the 1Dkd7... address after I got Bitcoin-qt set up on the machine (it was the address it created for the new wallet).  It would not have surprised me to see that amount, if the remainder after the 0.1 BTC to 1C9PZ... had been sent back to the 1Dkd7... address.

Any ideas how that 1PSv3... address got there?  I went ahead and password-protected the wallet using the in-program option for that.  Had to enter my password to send it to begin with.

Even weirder as I look at this some more.  The 1PSv3... address does not show up on any other transactions on Blockchain.

What the heck? Huh
Pages:
Jump to: