Quote from: pooya87 on April 28, 2019, 03:08:51 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on April 27, 2019, 09:43:11 PM

As of your safety argument: You are absolutely wrong.

i think you are confusing my reply! i never suggested address-reuse or never said it is "as safe" to reuse them. all i said was that you can't say it is unsafe today just because it can be broken some day.
all your arguments here can be said about hashes too. RIPEMD160 and SHA256 are going to become obsolete some day as they will be broken but you can't say it is unsafe to use them just because some day they will be broken. after all that is how cryptography has always been working for literary thousands of years

Neither RIPEMD-160 nor SHA256 are subject to such attack. They are not analytical and only a brute force attack is feasible to be run by adversaries which is not practical and will not be practical in foreseeable future, hence, they are safe now.

It is not the case with ECDSA-256k1, both QC and conventional digital computers on the hardware side and algorithms on the software side are under development right now and it is feasible to have this scheme broken in near future, hence, it is not safe now.

Once you disclose the public key behind a utxo without spending it (and making it useless this way), you have given a large window of time (as long as you keep the utxo untouched) to the adversary equipped with enough resources and knowledge to break it unlike what happens with an ordinary transaction in which it is exposed to such an attack just for few minutes.

Still I think the line of reasoning you follow makes it pointless to denounces address re-use anyway, if you can't say re-using bitcoin addresses is not safe, why should you discourage such a practice? You think I can't call it "not safe" so it is safe according to you, isn't it? Or may be it is somehow, something between safe and unsafe a shady status in security measures probably, both safe and not safe or neither safe nor not safe. What is it after all?