Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
FollowingNo, because this is a meaningless warning, because Bitcoin security should not be viewed this way.
Your security measures are incorrect. Anyone who treats security measures correctly warns against reusing addresses.
My opinion is that if the possibility of obtaining the private key by reversing the public key is even small and we have not migrated to a resistant protocol (hard fork), then Bitcoin is outdated!
This means that the warning you are talking about is either meaningless (meaning it is impossible to reverse the public key and reusing your address will not put you at any risk) or it is not a warning (Bitcoin is over and you should not even use it anymore).
No matter how unlikely it may be, it is always possible to obtain the private key from the public key, and it will always be possible in the future. So your opinion is untenable.
There are no quantum-resistant signatures in Bitcoin yet, why warn users of threats they cannot avoid?
The reason you should not reuse a Bitcoin address to receive payments is for privacy, not security.
Wrong. This is also about safety. If you don\'t consume from an address, your public key is safe under the SHA256 algorithm. As far as we know so far, quantum computers pose no risk to the SHA256 algorithm.
