4 ms·

and once you transfer money from your onetime address to your main, everyone will be able to see how much money you have. the only difference is, that they will

by gondo 9y ago

and once you transfer money from your onetime address to your main, everyone will be able to see how much money you have. the only difference is, that they will know it "little" later. still good enough f.e. for eshop to categorize customers and retarget them

Karunamon 9y ago
Is there really a need to even have a “main wallet”? Most implementations I know of will aggregate multiple wallets into your balance, and I think handle sending transactions from those wallets in sum of the full amount being requested to send.
- gondo 9y ago
  if you want to pay for something what is more expensive than what you have in one wallet (or transfer larger amount), you will eventually have to combine multiple wallets
  - cremp 9y ago
    That's one legit use of a mixing or joining service. Not saying there isn't tracability though those services (especially since we aren't ideal) since the point of the distributed ledger is tracability. Something that was rather easy was depositing to an exchange, and just withdrawing; you lose the identity of the coins, at the cost of the exchange knowing the connection.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      I think the traceability concerns are mostly handled since while it might be possible to infer an identity from an address that's sent to or from an exchange account, it's a lot more murky once those coins are moved elsewhere. If you know that address ABC belongs to me, and you see I sent coins to address DEF (which is entirely offline and using a brainwallet), and later DEF sends coins to GHI, you're left with the task of proving that DEF and GHI belong to me, and weren't me paying someone else.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jstanley 9y ago
    What you're saying is correct, except you keep saying "wallet" where you mean "address". A wallet is a collection of addresses.
  - ensignavenger 9y ago
    You can specify more than one input in a transaction, so that shouldn't be necessary.

by gondo 9y ago

Karunamon 9y ago

Is there really a need to even have a “main wallet”? Most implementations I know of will aggregate multiple wallets into your balance, and I think handle sending transactions from those wallets in sum of the full amount being requested to send.

gondo 9y ago
if you want to pay for something what is more expensive than what you have in one wallet (or transfer larger amount), you will eventually have to combine multiple wallets
- cremp 9y ago
  That's one legit use of a mixing or joining service. Not saying there isn't tracability though those services (especially since we aren't ideal) since the point of the distributed ledger is tracability. Something that was rather easy was depositing to an exchange, and just withdrawing; you lose the identity of the coins, at the cost of the exchange knowing the connection.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    I think the traceability concerns are mostly handled since while it might be possible to infer an identity from an address that's sent to or from an exchange account, it's a lot more murky once those coins are moved elsewhere. If you know that address ABC belongs to me, and you see I sent coins to address DEF (which is entirely offline and using a brainwallet), and later DEF sends coins to GHI, you're left with the task of proving that DEF and GHI belong to me, and weren't me paying someone else.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jstanley 9y ago
  What you're saying is correct, except you keep saying "wallet" where you mean "address". A wallet is a collection of addresses.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  You can specify more than one input in a transaction, so that shouldn't be necessary.