Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Next scheduled rescrape ... in 16 hours
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 20/07/2025, 12:24:44 UTC
Quote from: pooya87 on July 20, 2025, 03:32:20 AM
I voted no because I see it as a pointless warning because that's not how Bitcoin security should be viewed.
Incorrect approach to security by you. Address re-use was always warned against by anyone who approached security correctly.

Quote from: pooya87 on July 20, 2025, 03:32:20 AM
The way I see it is that if there is even a small possibility of reversing a public key to get the private key, and we still haven't migrated to a resistant protocol (a hard fork), then Bitcoin will have had become obsolete!
That means the warning you are talking about is either pointless (meaning it is impossible to reverse pubkey and reusing your address doesn't put you at any risk) or it is not a warning (bitcoin is already over and you shouldn't even be using it anymore).
It was always possible and it will always be possible to get a private key from a public key, however low the possibility. Therefore your point is invalid.

Quote from: Kruw on July 20, 2025, 11:07:04 AM
There aren't any quantum resistance signatures available in Bitcoin yet, why would you warn users about a threat they can't avoid?

The reason you aren't supposed to reuse your Bitcoin address for receiving payments is because of privacy, not security.
Wrong. It is about security too. If you don't spend from an address, then your public key is safe behind SHA256. There is no risk to SHA256 from quantum computers as far as we know today.

Quote from: m2017 on July 20, 2025, 06:53:17 AM
Quote from: d5000 on July 19, 2025, 07:34:15 PM
1) Warn if you are about to create a transaction which transfers only a part of the funds on an address to another address. This would make the remaining coins vulnerable to quantum attacks.
Am I correct in thinking that if you send the remaining wallet funds to a new address, the vulnerability will be eliminated? Then, this creates ample opportunity for fraudsters to forge this message and push users to send to a new, but foreign / non-owned address.
You are not correct. This would happen inside the wallet software, an outside fraudster can't "forge or push" anything. In any case this is not an argument, as users that can be tricked by viewing messages outside of their wallets will be tricked in one way or another.
Strong yes vote, obviously. It is such an easy thing to do to push many people who may know nothing about these issues towards better behavior. The argument can be flipped. There is no reason why the average user should ever reuse the same address. For them address re-use provides no real benefit aside convenience (which is more of a con than benefit), but it has plenty of downsides.
Original archived Re: Should wallets warn if you re-use addresses due to quantum computers?
Scraped on 20/07/2025, 12:20:06 UTC
Quote from: pooya87 on July 20, 2025, 03:32:20 AM
I voted no because I see it as a pointless warning because that's not how Bitcoin security should be viewed.
Incorrect approach to security by you. Address re-use was always warned against by anyone who approached security correctly.

Quote from: pooya87 on July 20, 2025, 03:32:20 AM
The way I see it is that if there is even a small possibility of reversing a public key to get the private key, and we still haven't migrated to a resistant protocol (a hard fork), then Bitcoin will have had become obsolete!
That means the warning you are talking about is either pointless (meaning it is impossible to reverse pubkey and reusing your address doesn't put you at any risk) or it is not a warning (bitcoin is already over and you shouldn't even be using it anymore).
It was always possible and it will always be possible to get a private key from a public key, however low the possibility. Therefore your point is invalid.

Quote from: Kruw on July 20, 2025, 11:07:04 AM
There aren't any quantum resistance signatures available in Bitcoin yet, why would you warn users about a threat they can't avoid?

The reason you aren't supposed to reuse your Bitcoin address for receiving payments is because of privacy, not security.
Wrong. It is about security too. If you don't spend from an address, then your public key is safe behind SHA256. There is no risk to SHA256 from quantum computers as far as we know today.

Strong yes vote, obviously. It is such an easy thing to do to push many people who may know nothing about these issues towards better behavior. The argument can be flipped. There is no reason why the average user should ever reuse the same address. For them address re-use provides no real benefit aside convenience (which is more of a con than benefit), but it has plenty of downsides.