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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev