Quote from: Strophon on November 16, 2013, 01:48:19 PM

This would be all well and good if every wallet client (or even most of them) actually, you know, implemented BIP32! As it is, the best you can do is point me to a python tool? I'm capable of using it, but that just seems like a massive pain in the ass to go to. (Oh look, someone used another one of my addresses! Better boot to linux, generate the private key, and import it into my wallet!) And that's for me, a software engineer. What about the less tech-savvy users?

Really as a tech savy person you can't think of a better workaround? How about generate and import 1,000 private keys. Then when you need to change the address simply use the python tool to find the next one in the sequence.

Quote

Moreover, most Bitcoin-related websites don't have BIP32 support either! They take one address for withdrawals. Some allow you to give multiple addresses, if they're a bit fancier, but even then, I'm supposed to post 50 addresses and log in to switch the address every time I get a payout?

Well they won't until there is a reason to do so and the patch gives them a reason. In the interim if a site allows posting 50 addresses why would you need to manually change them. It would be a trivial amount of coding for a site to use the next one automatically and notify you when the queue is low or out. Still BIP32 is a better longer term solution. However if sites don't implement them you can still use funds with a small disincentive. That would encourage people to use sites which do promote single use addresses.

Quote

And then there's Blockchain.info. Did you know Blockchain.info wallets reuse addresses by default unless you create new ones?

Then encourage blockchain.info to change their default behavior. The issue of reuse has been known since a YEAR PRIOR to the genesis block. It is unlikely without an incentive anything will change. Lastly remember this doesn't prohibit reuse, it doesn't make coins sent to a used address lost, it doesn't even mean higher mandatory fees. It is merely delaying secondary spends from the same address.

Quote

I appreciate the intent behind this proposal, but I don't think we're ready for this change yet. I do agree that we need to do this at some point in the future, but shouldn't we, you know, roll out the infrastructure necessary to make it actually workable first?

Chicken or the egg. Without the incentive will the infrastructure ever exist. Blockchain.info could easily (within minutes) change their code. Will they? Probably not. Not until users complain. Will users complain unless their is an incentive? Once again probably not. It isn't like Bitcoin just launched. There has been years to do things right and the lazy, easy approach has been used in most cases.