📅 Original date posted:2016-07-18
📝 Original message:
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 8:35:21 AM Ron OHara wrote:
> With Bitcoin it is NOT 'Alice transacting with Bob'.
> It is Address(1) transacting with Address(2) .... and if both parties
> are following the recommended practice of not re-using addresses, then
> their next interaction is Address(3) transacting with Address(4) -
> removing any possibility of optimization.
This is wrong. Addresses only receive, never send.
It'd make sense* (but only at a low level) if you used "Key" instead of
"Address", but even that doesn't reflect on what is actually going on in
Bitcoin. There is simply a database update that is consuming N tokens (all of
which are authenticated by satisfying their respective scripts), and producing
M new tokens with defined scripts to authenticate future attempts to spend
them.
At a high level, you have two wallets transacting, but those wallets remain
the same regardless of address reuse. That is, Wallet(1) is transacting with
Wallet(2) for every interaction, there is no Wallet(3) or Wallet(4). And of
course, the blockchain cannot see anything about these Wallets today.
Luke
* To be picky, note that the next interaction might be Key(2) with Key(3) if
it is spending the output created by the initial interaction. But that's
beside the point.
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-09 12:46:22
in reply to nevent1q…9jd8
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-09 12:46:22Event JSON
{
"id": "46168cd45e34333aa52d661b573ec24b506c3d64e42b63af830c34f0d361f323",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686314782,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c835f8488d8b0c013fff8874676c96a11f2e0a81c20d7cbd43662b7a5f1a1400",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"28a74073496e5e219579fc42d412961ba00b864e0923d94e28ada84a9622195c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-07-18\n📝 Original message:\nOn Sunday, July 10, 2016 8:35:21 AM Ron OHara wrote:\n\u003e With Bitcoin it is NOT 'Alice transacting with Bob'.\n\u003e It is Address(1) transacting with Address(2) .... and if both parties\n\u003e are following the recommended practice of not re-using addresses, then\n\u003e their next interaction is Address(3) transacting with Address(4) -\n\u003e removing any possibility of optimization.\n\nThis is wrong. Addresses only receive, never send.\n\nIt'd make sense* (but only at a low level) if you used \"Key\" instead of \n\"Address\", but even that doesn't reflect on what is actually going on in \nBitcoin. There is simply a database update that is consuming N tokens (all of \nwhich are authenticated by satisfying their respective scripts), and producing \nM new tokens with defined scripts to authenticate future attempts to spend \nthem.\n\nAt a high level, you have two wallets transacting, but those wallets remain \nthe same regardless of address reuse. That is, Wallet(1) is transacting with \nWallet(2) for every interaction, there is no Wallet(3) or Wallet(4). And of \ncourse, the blockchain cannot see anything about these Wallets today.\n\nLuke\n\n* To be picky, note that the next interaction might be Key(2) with Key(3) if \nit is spending the output created by the initial interaction. But that's \nbeside the point.",
"sig": "fea60fcf8d124ed13cb85eade4aba0445893502196d455347381c284a7793d69c8f598de1f8fd83927271da785e34b03bfdf1a2b75dfafa4fd7968b58c4f79f5"
}