You've already forked nakamoto-archive
25 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
25 lines
1.3 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
layout: forum
|
||
|
|
title: 'Re: Privacy versus Safety: handling change'
|
||
|
|
grand_parent: Forum Posts
|
||
|
|
parent: Bitcoin Forum
|
||
|
|
nav_order: 226
|
||
|
|
date: 2010-07-17 16:27:39 UTC
|
||
|
|
original: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=434.msg3770#msg3770
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Re: Privacy versus Safety: handling change
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
Re: Privacy versus Safety: handling change
|
||
|
|
July 17, 2010, 04:27:39 PM
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
We should queue up a supply of pre-made addresses in the wallet to use when a new address is needed. They aren't very big, so it wouldn't hurt to have a lot of them. This would more generally cover the case also where someone backs up, then requests a new address and receives a big payment with it. Maybe there should be separate queues so one type of demand on addresses doesn't deplete it for the others.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The addresses would be created and stored in the normal place, but also listed on a separate list of created-but-never-used addresses. When an address is requested, the address at the front of the never-used queue is handed out, and a new address is created and added to the back.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
There's some kind of rescan in the block loading code that was made to repair the case where someone copied their wallet.dat. I would need to check that the rescan handles the case of rediscovering received payments in blocks that were already received, but are forgotten because the wallet was restored.
|
||
|
|
```
|