4 ms·
Change addresses aren't part of the design at all. Multiple outputs are. By convention, an output to an address you control is called a change address, but it's
by jordigh 12y ago
Change addresses aren't part of the design at all. Multiple outputs are. By convention, an output to an address you control is called a change address, but it's just a convention on top of the protocol, not something the protocol is aware of.
And yes, their purpose is very explicitly extra anonymity. Gavin named a branch without change addresses a "noprivacy" branch:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1629/why-does-bitcoin-send-the-change-to-a-different-address#comment2139_1629 http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1629/why-does-bit...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- ikeboy 12y ago>By convention, an output to an address you control is called a change address, but it's just a convention on top of the protocol, not something the protocol is aware of. I'm aware of that, it's part of what I was trying to say. >Gavin named a branch without change addresses a "noprivacy" branch: That branch apparently just sends it to the sending address. There are other reasons not to reuse addresses unrelated to anonymity, see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse. So I still don't see a design choice that is specifically for anonymity.
- markburns 12y agoAnonymity and lack of susceptibility to a certain class of quantum computing attacks