It turns out this happened a year ago and the proposed fix I mentioned has already been implemented: "Since this post a year ago, this feature has been impleme

It turns out this happened a year ago and the proposed fix I mentioned has already been implemented: "Since this post a year ago, this feature has been implemented as keypools=100. Personally, I think it is a bad idea and does not address the problem, only pushes it off to the 101st address. At that point, users will come to expect certain backup behavior and then one day (presumably when they have more 'real' rather than 'play' money) it doesn't work as expected. Unless the pool is recycled (change is returned to a random or cycle of addresses) then this is far more dangerous. I propose, instead, what is expected. The change should be returned to the same address that the BitCoins were sent from. I understand this decreases deniability/anonymity. But if someone really is paranoid, they should really be laundering money through multiple addresses in random amounts at random intervals. Sending change to a new address is just an obvious 'paper trail' considering all transactions are public, it doesn't take genius investigator to follow the money."