how bad is it really reusing addresses? \ stacker news ~bitcoin

205 sats \ 12 comments \ @stack_harder 15 Oct bitcoin

ok so for context, i primarily do my buying on a kyc exchange (i;m planning on learning how to use robosats at some point to get away from kyc)

that being said, i withdraw to my btc address and i don't generate a new one each time , mainly because, i figure, chain analysis can already see which address the btc has gone to and even if i was withdrawing to some other address, they would presume it was mine anyway. i then consolidate utxos at about a million sats into a new address.

is there another aspect or reason I'm missing that would make withdrawing to a new address each time way better?

view all related items

38 sats \ 3 replies \ @OriginalSize 15 Oct

Until funds are spent from an address, there are two layers of protection for the private key. When spending you supply the ECDSA public key which removes one of those layers.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nym 15 Oct

This is more important than just the privacy aspect IMO.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @stack_harder OP 15 Oct

i thought the whole issue was that chain analysis could link identity to be honest, but how should a spend be defined? by moving the funds to another wallet i control, of some other transaction type?

6 sats \ 0 replies \ @OriginalSize 15 Oct

If you're on a KYC exchange then the chainalysis aspect is always there until you do something to break it. Your question was about other aspects and the key security is the other big one.

Anytime you share the bare pubkey fits the bill here so a spend to anywhere or even a signature proving you own said sats.

Depending on how big your utxos are you may want to consolidate when fees are low so maybe that'd be a good thing to do at the same time as switching to a new withdrawal address.

53 sats \ 3 replies \ @ChrisS 15 Oct

It’s not a great idea. First instead of just the exchange knowing all the bitcoin is yours every third party observer of the blockchain knows all the bitcoin is linked to one person(you). And even if you consolidate utxos to a new address it’s trivial for anybody(exchange person) you spend to in the future to look at the blockchain and know your whole balance that was received at the previous address.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @stack_harder OP 15 Oct

wouldnt a 3rd party need to be able to get my identity from the exchange though? or do you think this still is just out there on the black market being sold anyway?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ChrisS 15 Oct

wouldnt a 3rd party need to be able to get my identity from the exchange though?

Not necessarily. Probably not unless they are a big nation state. Don’t make it any easier. And don’t make it any easier for people you spend to in the future to know your balance.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @teemupleb 15 Oct

If you form clusters of multiple transactions with your address, it will be quite plausible to assume the addresses have the same owner.

You would only need one instance when you link your address to your identity (whether it’s a KYC database leak or your own blunder).

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @rebel_nomad 15 Oct

Actually I don't care too much, I'm better on pure chaos to help me out in the end!

As a Rebel Nomad I'm simply planning to move through the world as it changes, avoiding the worst traps & buidl the new as I please :-)

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @teemupleb 15 Oct

Great attitude!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @rebel_nomad 15 Oct

Thanks, it took a while to get to that point haha!

Relocating for 6+ months next year was the block, guess I'll have to see that as a long term work trip away from family, cats & our dog...

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullcount 15 Oct

deleted by author