📅 Original date posted:2019-10-02
📝 Original message:Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> My thinking at the moment (subject to change!) is:
>
> * anyprevout signatures make the address you're signing for less safe,
> which may cause you to lose funds when additional coins are sent to
> the same address; this can be avoided if handled with care (or if you
> don't care about losing funds in the event of address reuse)
>
It's not necessarily like this. Address re-use is many times OUTSIDE the
control of the address owner. Say I give my address to a counterparty.
They send me a transaction which I successfully spend. So far so good.
After that, I have no control over that counterparty. If they decide to
re-use that address, it does not mean I wanted to re-use it and it also
does not mean that I don't care about those funds being lost.
This could create a lot of problems in the industry and I think it
should be avoided. Address re-use has been strongly discouraged ever
since I can remember, and all (proper) wallet implementations try as
hard as possible to enforce it, but it's not always possible. A
counterparty that decides to re-use an address, either accidentally or
not, is not under the control of the user who handed out the address in
the first place.
There are also a lot of use cases with P2SH addresses that are some
smart contracts particularly designed to be re-used multiple times over
time.
My 2 cents are that this is not a good way to go. If you try to index
the entire blockchain until now you'll see that address re-use is more
common than we'd want it to be and there's no clear way to prevent this
from further happening without hurting the economic interests of the users.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20191002/282e8910/attachment.sig>;
s7r [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j3…cwg9h
2023-06-07 18:20:48
in reply to nevent1q…le8t
Author Public Key
npub1j3u42vq63qzs2nyddgkf4s4t7pa85x855vas54e6yauxsvpf2wcsacwg9hPublished at
2023-06-07 18:20:48Event JSON
{
"id": "9319f634b575699a47b8fdb3b79dfea6e9feddceb8cc97efd99d1c64c88eea2c",
"pubkey": "947955301a8805054c8d6a2c9ac2abf07a7a18f4a33b0a573a277868302953b1",
"created_at": 1686162048,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d4024562676a2b9f9ecb0fbb42db7e27569a53d33c57a608de3e3625f31c1f56",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c47f1ccbb0310832547176d646a19b5125ef213ec2493ade272877af8b7b734c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-10-02\n📝 Original message:Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n[SNIP]\n\u003e \n\u003e My thinking at the moment (subject to change!) is:\n\u003e \n\u003e * anyprevout signatures make the address you're signing for less safe,\n\u003e which may cause you to lose funds when additional coins are sent to\n\u003e the same address; this can be avoided if handled with care (or if you\n\u003e don't care about losing funds in the event of address reuse)\n\u003e \n\nIt's not necessarily like this. Address re-use is many times OUTSIDE the\ncontrol of the address owner. Say I give my address to a counterparty.\nThey send me a transaction which I successfully spend. So far so good.\n\nAfter that, I have no control over that counterparty. If they decide to\nre-use that address, it does not mean I wanted to re-use it and it also\ndoes not mean that I don't care about those funds being lost.\n\nThis could create a lot of problems in the industry and I think it\nshould be avoided. Address re-use has been strongly discouraged ever\nsince I can remember, and all (proper) wallet implementations try as\nhard as possible to enforce it, but it's not always possible. A\ncounterparty that decides to re-use an address, either accidentally or\nnot, is not under the control of the user who handed out the address in\nthe first place.\n\nThere are also a lot of use cases with P2SH addresses that are some\nsmart contracts particularly designed to be re-used multiple times over\ntime.\n\nMy 2 cents are that this is not a good way to go. If you try to index\nthe entire blockchain until now you'll see that address re-use is more\ncommon than we'd want it to be and there's no clear way to prevent this\nfrom further happening without hurting the economic interests of the users.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 488 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20191002/282e8910/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "46d7881d9fca51f0a68714258ec2e7326d9ed2050f81c9f775e3f80d26eaf75bc1eef0c26a11257f012a2855022c3a93102b97ef918836c5e4c0b2a443a55fe0"
}