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.
Not that the remaining funds need to be sent to another address, because if you make a transaction from a wallet address and it has a change, the remaining coins will be sent to a change address which its public key will not be revealed on the blockchain. The only thing is that people should not reuse their bitcoin addresses.
A phishing link as been used to steal coins on Electrum wallet before but this was stopped by Electrum wallet developers. Ever since that time, nothing like that has happened. If such can be solved, this should not be a problem. But I may not be totally right about this because we know how hackers are very dangerous, probably you have a point but which I think could be avoided. That is the reason we are telling people to use a trustworthy wallet instead.
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.
You are very wrong. Address reuse is advised for privacy so far quantum computers are not yet a threat. It is quantum computers that will later let it be of security concern.
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.
This is absolutely false information from your Satofan44. Please do not post incorrect information to mislead people. I even thought you were a good poster before but seeing this from you makes me think your knowledge is still limited. I hope you have changed from giving people negative feedback because you think they are wrong now because their posts is against yours.
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.
Kruw is right. Until quantum computers can be able to generate private key from public key, that will be when it become security concern.