Not re-using addresses makes sense, both from a security and potential privacy point of view.
I see #3 on the Bitcoin 400 Rich List has revealed their public key to the world. I take comfort in knowing that this owner would likely become a target first before any of my modest holdings, in the event of an ECDSA crisis. The blockchain could potentially be salvaged under such a scenario, but some coins could be moved without the owner's consent. I understand that not re-using addresses protects coins further by benefiting from the cryptographic hash functions, limiting any potential attacks.
...
tldr. Paranoid.
didn't quite get the 2nd part of your post, so i don't think i can make a coherent response to it I see #3 on the Bitcoin 400 Rich List has revealed their public key to the world. I take comfort in knowing that this owner would likely become a target first before any of my modest holdings, in the event of an ECDSA crisis. The blockchain could potentially be salvaged under such a scenario, but some coins could be moved without the owner's consent. I understand that not re-using addresses protects coins further by benefiting from the cryptographic hash functions, limiting any potential attacks.
...
tldr. Paranoid.
it does make sense to limit the amount of coins stored at a given address since if one were able to generate your private key they could steal the coins. having less than the equivalent of USD 50K at an address is probably sufficient to be "safe" in the event that ECDSA weaknesses are exploited.