Subnostr

I'm pretty sure the author is mistaken. Separate wallets help with other attacks (i.e. Janus), so you might still want to do this anyway, but I don't think it's relevant for this attack.

There is no difference seen on-chain from you sending your entire balance to a 2nd wallet VS sending your entire balance to the same wallet.

You would still have the same number of inputs/outputs and you would generate a completely new stealth address in either case.

Unless I missed something, and if so lmk, but I can't see any difference.

I know they warn about churning, but I'm not suggesting to continuously do this, just as a thing you do once in awhile, or as often as you would do if you followed their advice with a 2nd wallet.

Hanshan 10mo ago

i think you're right.

i suspect he's being so insistent about two separate wallets just because it's easier organizationally. its hard to keep track of which outputs youve already churned.

Ive been doing it this way for quite some time.

additional note

depending on theeat model you also may want to know *which outputs are being combined, ie use coin control and sweep to the new address .

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Hanshan 10mo ago

and upon reflection

when churning, does it even matter if you send to the same subaddress multiple times?

a new stealth address is generated anyway right?

Saberhagen The Nameless 10mo ago

The way I understand it the same stealth address is never seen more than once as an output on the entire blockchain (36^64 unique combinations)

It doesn't matter if you send to the same subaddress multiple times you will always get a completely new never-before-seen stealth address on-chain.

Hanshan 10mo ago

right 👍