Topic: Waste of bitcoin addresses (Read 383 times)
You're welcome, thank you too, I always read all replies on my topics. Yes, I have a new point of view of it, I understand now that's perfectly okay to use addresses only once. To me, Satoshi will always be the greatest scientist/engineer of monetary system, and I hope Bitcoin will have a mass adoption. I always pay in Bitcoin when I have the chance (common guys, we are not in 2010 anymore when bitcoins that worth 2 pizzas will bring you hundreds of millions of $ later) and run a full node, because I trully support Bitcoin. Cheers!
I'm happy that you replied to my question, dragospirvu75. I thought it was going to be flooded out or something. Thank you for the time that you spent answering it. So I understand that now, you have a new point of view on it? Imagine the influence of Satoshi in every one of us, this is so amazing. 
It makes sense, thanks!
Don't think of Bitcoin as your bank account or as Ethereum where you have one address and you can constantly spend and reuse the same address over and over again. As mentioned previously, Bitcoin works with inputs and outputs. Think of them as individual banknotes. Each time you receive a new transaction, you get a new paper bill. No matter where you put that bill (in which address you receive the coins), it always remains a bill of that size.
If it's a $100, you are forced to spend all of it, if you don't have any other bills. What you owe will be sent to the recipient, the rest goes back to you as a new banknote. Electrum is account-based. It's like paying with a debit card. If you have $100 in your Ethereum account/debit card and you spend $10 of it, the remaining balance is left on the same card/account.
That's why you can't think of Bitcoin in the traditional sense.
If it's a $100, you are forced to spend all of it, if you don't have any other bills. What you owe will be sent to the recipient, the rest goes back to you as a new banknote. Electrum is account-based. It's like paying with a debit card. If you have $100 in your Ethereum account/debit card and you spend $10 of it, the remaining balance is left on the same card/account.
That's why you can't think of Bitcoin in the traditional sense.
Oh, I didn't know Satoshi said that. If he said that so, then I trust it. Thanks!
And I feel a bitcoin address will be good forever.
But if you want privacy, you need to use a new address for every new transaction.That's what recommended by bitcoin creator too.
For greater privacy, it's best to use bitcoin addresses only once.
And changing them at every new payment and then throwing them away forever makes me feel like a huge bitcoin-addresses-waster (although I know there can be 2^160 addreeses).
Even if you create millions of addresses and never use them, you don't waste anything. And changing them at every new payment and then throwing them away forever makes me feel like a huge bitcoin-addresses-waster
Note that the protocol doesn't really deal with addresses - it deals with outputs. Addresses exist to make things easier for us to read and understand. When you choose which coins to spend in a transaction, although you might pick an address, the protocol is looking at the previous transaction hash and output index. When you send coins to an address, the protocol is actually dealing with the locking script. Therefore, it makes no difference if you use the same address 1000 times or if you use 1000 different addresses. The fees you pay will be the same, the size of your transactions will be the same, and the amount of data you create on the blockchain will be the same.(although I know there can be 2^160 addreeses).
It's actually much more than 2160, once you consider all the different address types.
Guys, I've read all of your replies, and thank you for them. When I said waste of bitcoin addresses, I meant that I find it a big waste of addresses to change your address for every payment if they are limited (but a huge number). Like wearing a T-shirt only once for every new day, and then never use it again.
Some people consider Proof-of-Work, a consensus mechanism that requires miners to constantly expend energy in order to find a new block, a waste of resources, but without PoW, bitcoin would have already been captured and destroyed. However, they don't care about possible unintended bad consequences that may come with switching to a less wasteful consensus algorithm because they think bitcoin has no real value at all. Spending any amount of energy on something of no value may be considered a waste of energy. The same rule applies to "waste of bitcoin addresses." If you don't see how non-reuse of addresses benefits your privacy and protects you from other external attacks, you automatically consider it a waste of resources. But now I've discovered from you a new problem, I didn't know that two different wallets can generate the same address. If this happens (although I know mathematically is almost 0) where do the bitcoins go? To the first wallet that created the address or what?
We will never know where those bitcoins would go because by the time it happens, the universe will have collapsed to non-existence.
Thanks to you all for your time and answers (BlackHatCoiner,ranochigo,hosseinimr93,bitmover,ETFbitcoin,LoyceMobile, DireWolfM14, o_e_l_e_o, crwth, garlonicon,NotATether). I've read them all carefully, but it's hard for me to answer to each one, especially because I really don't know how to use quotes.
Bitcoin network is far more complex than I thought, really wonder if Satoshi was only one person, but this concept is brilliant.
Appreciate your explications, I've learned some new things.
To answer crwth's question ("I don't get why you are annoyed with it. Can you explain it further, OP?"):
My principle in life is to use something as much time as it's good, then recycle it to use it again etc. And I feel a bitcoin address will be good forever. And changing them at every new payment and then throwing them away forever makes me feel like a huge bitcoin-addresses-waster (although I know there can be 2^160 addreeses).
But I understand that's not a problem, because there are a lot.
Thanks for your answers!
Bitcoin network is far more complex than I thought, really wonder if Satoshi was only one person, but this concept is brilliant.
Appreciate your explications, I've learned some new things.
To answer crwth's question ("I don't get why you are annoyed with it. Can you explain it further, OP?"):
My principle in life is to use something as much time as it's good, then recycle it to use it again etc. And I feel a bitcoin address will be good forever. And changing them at every new payment and then throwing them away forever makes me feel like a huge bitcoin-addresses-waster (although I know there can be 2^160 addreeses).
But I understand that's not a problem, because there are a lot.
Thanks for your answers!
What exactly do you mean by waste? Generating some addresses only took few miliseconds and you only use extra few KB to store it on RAM/storage.
Maybe he's referring to dust fees? But then again, just as multiple inputs from the same address can be spent in one transaction - this already is done with some wallets like Android bitcoin wallet - so can multiple inputs from different addresses can be spent in one transaction all at once. This is something wallets are also able to do, and it's usually done automatically.
The takeaway from this is that you don't waste coins by leaving a tiny mount in one address, they can be spent along with other inputs as well.
But I agree with above users that LN should be used for such small amounts anyway.
Mathematically, it is possible to artificially force that situation. For example, it is possible to create some deterministic wallet, export some child private key, and then create the new tree by using that child private key as the master private key. Then, both wallets can generate identical addresses, if they have a different derivation paths, where for one wallet it is one more step.
When it comes to use cases, it is possible to create some Lightning Network wallet, where some server could run 24/7 and sign new transactions, while having a local access to all keys. Then, it is possible to handle hot wallet and cold wallet by having a single private key, that could be used to generate entropy. It is possible, because for deterministic wallets, "a single private key can rule them all", it is just a matter of configuring things properly.
Of course you can, but that wouldn't be a fair scenario to consider. I can easily say that mathematically, the chances of it happening is 100% assuming that I replace urandom with a fixed entropy for every address generated within a single OS. Introducing and manipulating variables that would affect and skew the results wouldn't be very fair and is not what is supposed to happen under normal circumstances.When it comes to use cases, it is possible to create some Lightning Network wallet, where some server could run 24/7 and sign new transactions, while having a local access to all keys. Then, it is possible to handle hot wallet and cold wallet by having a single private key, that could be used to generate entropy. It is possible, because for deterministic wallets, "a single private key can rule them all", it is just a matter of configuring things properly.
Not really sure how is the first scenario relates to address collision?
Quote
Both. Not really a question, since you already know that it is mathematically almost 0.
Mathematically, it is possible to artificially force that situation. For example, it is possible to create some deterministic wallet, export some child private key, and then create the new tree by using that child private key as the master private key. Then, both wallets can generate identical addresses, if they have a different derivation paths, where for one wallet it is one more step.When it comes to use cases, it is possible to create some Lightning Network wallet, where some server could run 24/7 and sign new transactions, while having a local access to all keys. Then, it is possible to handle hot wallet and cold wallet by having a single private key, that could be used to generate entropy. It is possible, because for deterministic wallets, "a single private key can rule them all", it is just a matter of configuring things properly.
Guys, I've read all of your replies, and thank you for them. When I said waste of bitcoin addresses, I meant that I find it a big waste of addresses to change your address for every payment if they are limited (but a huge number). Like wearing a T-shirt only once for every new day, and then never use it again.
Sure. The number of possible Bitcoin addresses is practically in-exhaustable.In comparison, you have a very limited number of T-Shirts. If you were to have a billion t-shirts and you wear a new t-shirt everyday, then would you feel the same as having 100 and wearing a new t-shirt everyday? There is a negligible impact on the number of addresses that has yet to be generated. I'm not sure why you're making an issue out of nothing.
But now I've discovered from you a new problem, I didn't know that two different wallets can generate the same address. If this happens (although I know mathematically is almost 0) where do the bitcoins go? To the first wallet that created the address or what?
Both. Not really a question, since you already know that it is mathematically almost 0.
You are not wasting anything, don't worry. It's going to be okay. I don't know why it annoys you so much. You could always reuse addresses just like how some members here in BTCT use their address in their payments in their respective signature campaigns and are being reused because it receives BTC weekly. Isn't the principle the same?
I don't get why you are annoyed with it. Can you explain it further, OP?
I don't get why you are annoyed with it. Can you explain it further, OP?
Like wearing a T-shirt only once for every new day, and then never use it again.
Yes, but there's nothing wrong with wearing a brand new T-shirt everyday and throwing the old away, if it's for free. In fact, it's even better. Same is for bitcoin addresses; if you reuse the same address, it's terrible for your privacy. Remember that your transactions from that very address are public, available for anyone, anytime, anywhere. If this happens (although I know mathematically is almost 0) where do the bitcoins go? To the first wallet that created the address or what?
The bitcoins don't move across wallets. They remain in the same location, which is the blockchain, inside blocks, as outputs. If you have the private key to mathematically "unlock" such output, you can spend the coins.To answer your question, the bitcoins will appear in both wallets and can be spent by any wallet. The wallet that spends it first, gets the advantage.
Guys, I've read all of your replies, and thank you for them. When I said waste of bitcoin addresses, I meant that I find it a big waste of addresses to change your address for every payment if they are limited (but a huge number). Like wearing a T-shirt only once for every new day, and then never use it again.
But now I've discovered from you a new problem, I didn't know that two different wallets can generate the same address. If this happens (although I know mathematically is almost 0) where do the bitcoins go? To the first wallet that created the address or what?
But now I've discovered from you a new problem, I didn't know that two different wallets can generate the same address. If this happens (although I know mathematically is almost 0) where do the bitcoins go? To the first wallet that created the address or what?
There's no way those addresses can be part of another wallet, they either get used by you or they'll never be used.
There's nothing stopping those addresses being part of another wallet. Two different seeds could absolutely generate the same address somewhere in their derivation paths, and indeed, since the number of all possible derivation paths is many orders of magnitude higher than the number of possible private keys, then it's certain that this is the case. But of course this will never happen simply because of the sheer size of the numbers we are dealing with.I feel OP (wrongly) thinks that there are limited number of addresses.
But there are a limited number of addresses. It's just that we will never reach that limit. What exactly do you mean by waste? Generating some addresses only took few miliseconds and you only use extra few KB to store it on RAM/storage.
I feel OP (wrongly) thinks that there are limited number of addresses. They will all be used if people generate a new address for every transaction and eventually there won't be any new address to be generated. 
Guys, isn't creating a new address for every new transaction a huge waste of addresses? I know there are a lot of them and maybe we won't use them all and there's that thing of 'privacy', but common, every time I receive a payment (android bitcoin wallet) a new address is created and it really annoys me a lot to use an address for 1-3$ and then be wasted forever.
A hierarchical deterministic has generated the seed to create your address tree, so any "new" address it generates for you is already part of your wallet. There's no way those addresses can be part of another wallet, they either get used by you or they'll never be used. The only "waste" would be to not use them. It's not as if your use of them makes them unavailable to others, by having created that wallet those addresses are now and always will be available only to you.
It seems that you don't know how addresses are generated.
It's not that there's a big list of addresses and every time you generate a new address, you pick one from the list.
If you worry about generating an address that has already been generated by someone else, note that in theory it can happen at any time. In practice, it will never happen.
To add to this: for the size of the blockchain it doesn't matter if you use a new address or one that was used already. In short: don't worry about it, use as many addresses as you want.It's not that there's a big list of addresses and every time you generate a new address, you pick one from the list.
If you worry about generating an address that has already been generated by someone else, note that in theory it can happen at any time. In practice, it will never happen.
it really annoys me a lot to use an address for 1-3$
There are no "dollars" in Bitcoin. I assume you mean amounts around 3000-10,000 sat. Consider switching to Bitcoin Lightning Network, or make larger transactions when possible. You'll save on transaction fees. Jump to: