<p>TL;DR: Recipients should completely ignore change outputs of transactions.</p>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Is it possible to disable that process asset shifting procedure from lower blocks to higher blocks?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think you are probably describing the change output of a transaction. It isn't possible to disable change entirely and most wallets generate a new change &quot;address&quot; for each transaction. As a recipient you should not be concerned at all about change - you should ignore change.</p>
<p>A transaction output for returning change does not constitute a &quot;process asset shifting procedure from lower blocks to higher blocks&quot; -- That seems a bizarre view and a change transaction might occur in the same block that contains the earlier transaction which generated the input amount - so there is no explicit asset shifting between blocks of the blockchain by transactions.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>if possible, what could be the consequences the wallet face?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>No one would use a wallet which does not return change.</p>
<p>Fewer people would use a wallet that fails to protect their privacy in well-established ways such as avoiding address reuse.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>What are those internal change mechanisms serves for?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>If I use a $20 banknote to buy a $12 pizza I expect to get $8 back in change.</p>
<p>I don't want the pizza vendor to be able to work out how much money I have in my pocket, under my mattress and in the bank.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>If not possible to disable the process, the automatically generated address control and verification is possible inside the bitcoin core?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think the answer is yes but it is hard to be sure because the question looks a bit like word soup and so I find it hard to work out what it is you are asking.</p>
<p>Bitcoin core and other modern wallets do indeed automatically generate new change addresses for each transaction. This was a deliberate <strong>improvement</strong></p>
<p>Bitcoin core and other wallets <strong>always verify</strong>/validate all blockchain data to the fullest extent possible.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T20:41:27.877Z
Thank you very much for detailed explanation!
Serkan Ozkan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T17:01:36.930Z
2023-02-25T17:12:16.610Z
2023-02-25T17:12:16.610Z
RedGrittyBrick
<p>During the Bitcoin transactions, there are one time use address are generated in order to handover change inside wallet that shift the change from lower blocks to higher blocks (According to some Bitcoin related articles). As far as I have understood that it is normal procedure like change payment in return!</p>
<p>We have implemented Bitcoin pay system for our Decentralized Autonomous Organization project. To be able to prove DAO members payment, I need to check per each members address and how much they paid. The unknown transaction which I have tried to explain above creates consequences to verify DAO transactions' overcome this problem to extract that address whether he/she is DAO members address or not!</p>
<p>in DAO mechanisms the theory; Third parties verifies the payment if the payee list get it or not. The transaction input and outputs; senders, receivers and the amount in the receiver list used as proof of payment.</p>
<p>In reality ; transaction input and outputs; senders, receivers and the amount in the receiver list used as proof of payment. But the unrecognized address which I mentioned above pays and receives appears from the senders list and receivers list too not belongs to DAO members addresses. So it creates a conflict and trust related problems in DAO. Despite the transaction not visible in Bitcoin ore wallet but visible in bitcoin block explorer services!</p>
<p>In conclusions; the our verification system spoiled by this unknown address which we did not ask it to do transaction!</p>
<p>Questions :</p>
<ul>
<li>Is it possible to disable that process asset shifting procedure from lower blocks to higher blocks?</li>
<li>if possible, what could be the consequences the wallet face?</li>
<li>What are those internal change mechanisms serves for?</li>
<li>If not possible to disable the process, the automatically generated address control and verification is possible inside the bitcoin core?</li>
</ul>
<p>Post the ChatGtp`s comment below; Could you verify if true and what could be the new method to identify those addresses by verifiers?</p>
<p>-----Relaying to my questions Chat GTP answer and descriptions -----</p>
<p>Based on your description, it sounds like the issue you're facing is related to change addresses in Bitcoin transactions. Change addresses are automatically generated by Bitcoin wallets as a way to handle the change that is generated when someone sends a Bitcoin transaction that is larger than the amount they actually want to send. The remaining funds are sent to a new address in the same wallet, which is usually generated on the fly and is used only once.</p>
<p>To answer your questions:</p>
<p>It is not possible to disable the process of using change addresses in Bitcoin transactions, as it is a fundamental part of how the Bitcoin protocol works. If change addresses were disabled, it would make it much more difficult to use Bitcoin as a currency, as it would be harder to handle transactions where the amount being sent is not an exact match for the funds available in a given address.</p>
<p>If change addresses were disabled, it could have significant consequences for the usability of the Bitcoin network. It would make it harder for people to use Bitcoin as a currency, and it would likely lead to a decrease in the number of transactions being processed on the network.</p>
<p>The internal change mechanisms that create change addresses are designed to help manage Bitcoin transactions more efficiently. By automatically generating a new address to handle the change in a transaction, it makes it easier for wallets to manage their funds and reduce the chances of errors or lost funds.</p>
<p>It is not possible to control the generation of change addresses within the Bitcoin Core software, as it is a fundamental part of how the Bitcoin protocol works. However, you may be able to use third-party tools or services to help you track and verify transactions that involve change addresses. You could also consider implementing additional verification processes within your DAO project to help ensure that only trusted addresses are used for transactions.</p>
<hr />
<p>for those information's above I need to redesign verification process to identify the change per each transaction and prove the members. However we get information from Bitcoin Core wallet using RPC. It does not provide change address information, but can be seen sometime if change returns.</p>
<p>Many Thanks!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T10:37:41.410Z
It's unclear what your question is, but it seems specific to the logic of your DAO and not specific to Bitcoin, which is off-topic for this forum. Can you provide a specific example and detail what part of the Bitcoin protocol you are having trouble understanding?
josie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T11:06:58.793Z
Hi Josie,
Thanks for your response, but it is not off the topic, but the way of my explanation might cause misunderstanding.  I will edit the main question, however. 

The real question is, during the transactions using bitcoin core, one time use unknown address are created which is invisible to wallet owners but can be seen in bitcoin blockchain explorer. As I have learned it is sometimes happens is like to settle account, getting values from lower blocks to shift on higher levels. That's why it happens.
Serkan Ozkan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T11:09:57.677Z
Those, unknown transactions causing misunderstanding by the clients if we use in pay processing or like our case, we have a member groups that they provide payments to be used in a pool in DAO. However those unknown random generated addresses per transaction confuses and creating doubts for members. 

My Questions: 
- How to stop those unexplained wallet generation, if possible!
- What could be consequences if we stop those process that I don`t know the name.
- If it is indispensable process, how to identify or manually control them to explain in the system in transparency?
Serkan Ozkan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T11:19:29.660Z
I'm still having trouble understanding your question, but generally, Bitcoin addresses should never be reused when transacting. Also, in most cases, a transaction will have two outputs: one for the recipient and the other for change sent back to the sender's wallet. Bitcoin has no concept of accounts and Bitcoin addresses should not be used as stable identifiers.
josie
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T11:36:24.800Z
Thanks josie,

I have also asked ChatGTP the same question he summarize what my problem is: 

"Based on description, it sounds like the issue you're facing is related to change addresses in Bitcoin transactions. Change addresses are automatically generated by Bitcoin wallets as a way to handle the change that is generated when someone sends a Bitcoin transaction that is larger than the amount they actually want to send. The remaining funds are sent to a new address in the same wallet, which is usually generated on the fly and is used only once."
Serkan Ozkan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T11:53:40.463Z
As far as I know almost all cryptocurrency exchanges provides deposit wallets to reuse hundredths of times. Since we desire to have transparent transactions, each member would have unique address that should be reuse from the idea.
 As I have seen in bitcoincore, also recommends per each transaction new address. But it makes harder to identify transactions in DAO and impossible to use bitcoin as payment system for us.
Serkan Ozkan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T11:54:17.667Z
Since all transactions visible in blockchain and explorers, and all assets protected by simple passphrase in the wallet (unless the person expose his wallet.dat file)  I see them in the same level of security whether generate new address per each transaction or not! It might only reduce the risk of loss amount of someone able to success by brutal force to reveal our private keys!
Serkan Ozkan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-25T12:02:25.960Z
It is not a matter of security, but of privacy. Address reuse is detrimental to user privacy and should be avoided.
josie
<transactions><payment><error>
Bitcoin Transaction unknown address input and output!
Serkan Ozkan
# Bitcoin Transaction unknown address input and output!

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-02-24)

During the Bitcoin transactions, there are one time use address are generated in order to handover change inside wallet that shift the change from lower blocks to higher blocks (According to some Bitcoin related articles). As far as I have understood that it is normal procedure like change payment in return!

We have implemented Bitcoin pay system for our Decentralized Autonomous Organization project. To be able to prove DAO members payment, I need to check per each members address and how much they paid. The unknown transaction which I have tried to explain above creates consequences to verify DAO transactions' overcome this problem to extract that address whether he/she is DAO members address or not!

in DAO mechanisms the theory; Third parties verifies the payment if the payee list get it or not. The transaction input and outputs; senders, receivers and the amount in the receiver list used as proof of payment.

In reality ; transaction input and outputs; senders, receivers and the amount in the receiver list used as proof of payment. But the unrecognized address which I mentioned above pays and receives appears from the senders list and receivers list too not belongs to DAO members addresses. So it creates a conflict and trust related problems in DAO. Despite the transaction not visible in Bitcoin ore wallet but visible in bitcoin block explorer services!

In conclusions; the our verification system spoiled by this unknown address which we did not ask it to do transaction!

Questions :

* Is it possible to disable that process asset shifting procedure from lower blocks to higher blocks?
* if possible, what could be the consequences the wallet face?
* What are those internal change mechanisms serves for?
* If not possible to disable the process, the automatically generated address control and verification is possible inside the bitcoin core?

Post the ChatGtp`s comment below; Could you verify if true and what could be the new method to identify those addresses by verifiers?

-----Relaying to my questions Chat GTP answer and descriptions -----

Based on your description, it sounds like the issue you're facing is related to change addresses in Bitcoin transactions. Change addresses are automatically generated by Bitcoin wallets as a way to handle the change that is generated when someone sends a Bitcoin transaction that is larger than the amount they actually want to send. The remaining funds are sent to a new address in the same wallet, which is usually generated on the fly and is used only once.

To answer your questions:

It is not possible to disable the process of using change addresses in Bitcoin transactions, as it is a fundamental part of how the Bitcoin protocol works. If change addresses were disabled, it would make it much more difficult to use Bitcoin as a currency, as it would be harder to handle transactions where the amount being sent is not an exact match for the funds available in a given address.

If change addresses were disabled, it could have significant consequences for the usability of the Bitcoin network. It would make it harder for people to use Bitcoin as a currency, and it would likely lead to a decrease in the number of transactions being processed on the network.

The internal change mechanisms that create change addresses are designed to help manage Bitcoin transactions more efficiently. By automatically generating a new address to handle the change in a transaction, it makes it easier for wallets to manage their funds and reduce the chances of errors or lost funds.

It is not possible to control the generation of change addresses within the Bitcoin Core software, as it is a fundamental part of how the Bitcoin protocol works. However, you may be able to use third-party tools or services to help you track and verify transactions that involve change addresses. You could also consider implementing additional verification processes within your DAO project to help ensure that only trusted addresses are used for transactions.

---

for those information's above I need to redesign verification process to identify the change per each transaction and prove the members. However we get information from Bitcoin Core wallet using RPC. It does not provide change address information, but can be seen sometime if change returns.

Many Thanks!

**Tags:** transactions, payment, error

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It's unclear what your question is, but it seems specific to the logic of your DAO and not specific to Bitcoin, which is off-topic for this forum. Can you provide a specific example and detail what part of the Bitcoin protocol you are having trouble understanding?  
> **username_0**: Hi username_1, Thanks for your response, but it is not off the topic, but the way of my explanation might cause misunderstanding.  I will edit the main question, however.   The real question is, during the transactions using bitcoin core, one time use unknown address are created which is invisible to wallet owners but can be seen in bitcoin blockchain explorer. As I have learned it is sometimes happens is like to settle account, getting values from lower blocks to shift on higher levels. That's why it happens.  
> **username_0**: Those, unknown transactions causing misunderstanding by the clients if we use in pay processing or like our case, we have a member groups that they provide payments to be used in a pool in DAO. However those unknown random generated addresses per transaction confuses and creating doubts for members.   My Questions:  - How to stop those unexplained wallet generation, if possible! - What could be consequences if we stop those process that I don`t know the name. - If it is indispensable process, how to identify or manually control them to explain in the system in transparency?  
> **username_1**: I'm still having trouble understanding your question, but generally, Bitcoin addresses should never be reused when transacting. Also, in most cases, a transaction will have two outputs: one for the recipient and the other for change sent back to the sender's wallet. Bitcoin has no concept of accounts and Bitcoin addresses should not be used as stable identifiers.  
> **username_0**: Thanks username_1,  I have also asked ChatGTP the same question he summarize what my problem is:   "Based on description, it sounds like the issue you're facing is related to change addresses in Bitcoin transactions. Change addresses are automatically generated by Bitcoin wallets as a way to handle the change that is generated when someone sends a Bitcoin transaction that is larger than the amount they actually want to send. The remaining funds are sent to a new address in the same wallet, which is usually generated on the fly and is used only once."  
> **username_0**: As far as I know almost all cryptocurrency exchanges provides deposit wallets to reuse hundredths of times. Since we desire to have transparent transactions, each member would have unique address that should be reuse from the idea.  As I have seen in bitcoincore, also recommends per each transaction new address. But it makes harder to identify transactions in DAO and impossible to use bitcoin as payment system for us.  
> **username_0**: Since all transactions visible in blockchain and explorers, and all assets protected by simple passphrase in the wallet (unless the person expose his wallet.dat file)  I see them in the same level of security whether generate new address per each transaction or not! It might only reduce the risk of loss amount of someone able to success by brutal force to reveal our private keys!  
> **username_1**: It is not a matter of security, but of privacy. Address reuse is detrimental to user privacy and should be avoided.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-02-25. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

TL;DR: Recipients should completely ignore change outputs of transactions.

---

> **Is it possible to disable that process asset shifting procedure from lower blocks to higher blocks?**

I think you are probably describing the change output of a transaction. It isn't possible to disable change entirely and most wallets generate a new change "address" for each transaction. As a recipient you should not be concerned at all about change - you should ignore change.

A transaction output for returning change does not constitute a "process asset shifting procedure from lower blocks to higher blocks" -- That seems a bizarre view and a change transaction might occur in the same block that contains the earlier transaction which generated the input amount - so there is no explicit asset shifting between blocks of the blockchain by transactions.

> **if possible, what could be the consequences the wallet face?**

No one would use a wallet which does not return change.

Fewer people would use a wallet that fails to protect their privacy in well-established ways such as avoiding address reuse.

> **What are those internal change mechanisms serves for?**

If I use a $20 banknote to buy a $12 pizza I expect to get $8 back in change.

I don't want the pizza vendor to be able to work out how much money I have in my pocket, under my mattress and in the bank.

> **If not possible to disable the process, the automatically generated address control and verification is possible inside the bitcoin core?**

I think the answer is yes but it is hard to be sure because the question looks a bit like word soup and so I find it hard to work out what it is you are asking.

Bitcoin core and other modern wallets do indeed automatically generate new change addresses for each transaction. This was a deliberate **improvement**

Bitcoin core and other wallets **always verify**/validate all blockchain data to the fullest extent possible.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you very much for detailed explanation!  

---

