<blockquote>
  <p>many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The sentence refers to the fact that the address can be involved in many different transactions. This is most likely seen with the address working as a receiving address, or destination address. For instance, imagine that you want to have an address posted in your personal website where you receive donations from people. It would be tedious to change it every time you receive a transaction. </p>

<p>As you already mentioned, reusing an address is not usually a good practice, since it could involve some privacy issues. By using a different address each time you perform a payment, you make it harder to link different bitcoin addresses owned by you (however, not impossible). By using always the same address when paying you make way easier for a third party to analyse your behaviour, based on where you are sending bitcoins. </p>

<p>Finally you should not mix up Bitcoin address with wallet. Think in a wallet as a collection of tools that let you manage your Bitcoin address (or addresses), such managing public/private keys to create transactions. What is said to be a bad practice in the <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bitcoin wiki</a> is referring to use the same Bitcoin address multiple times. The wallet is a collection of tools, the Bitcoin address will be more like an endpoint. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-18T19:20:06.457Z
So the "address" in "many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address" really mean bitcoin address, but in the context of bad practice?
Aqqqq
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-18T21:09:51.287Z
You should not mix up wallet with address. A bitcoin wallet can hold multiple addresses, actually it usualy does. Bitcoin Core wallet for example creates a new address every time a transaction is performed to get the change returned, if there is change. That is: imagine that you have 2 BTC in address A1 form a single previous transmission, and you want to transfer 1 BTC to address B1. You should send 1 BTC back to yourself, otherwise it will be treated as fees (that is normally done to a new generated address, for example A2).
sr_gi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-19T14:48:14.817Z
So the "address" in this context should be "wallet" instead, am I correct?
Aqqqq
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-19T18:17:33.650Z
No, unfortunately you are not, it means Bitcoin address. Think in a wallet as a collection of tools that let you manage your Bitcoin address (or addresses). What is said to be a bad practice in the Bitcoin wiki page you provided is referring to use the same Bitcoin address multiple times. The wallet is a tool, the Bitcoin address will be more like an endpoint.
sr_gi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-19T20:37:22.497Z
Sorry I am confused. What does "many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address" really mean if it is not referring to the bad practice involving using the same bitcoin address multiple times?
Aqqqq
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-21T20:55:58.877Z
Forget for a moment about the bad practice. Imagine that you can only have a single Bitcoin address. Then, all the transactions in which you will be involve will be tied to that address. Now, if we take into account the "bad practice" consideration, it is not recommended to reuse addresses, but this do not mean that you can't do it. Hence, many different transactions can be tied to a single address.
sr_gi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-22T08:36:27.643Z
Nice! Is that all?
sr_gi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-22T08:45:40.120Z
Yes (for now at least). It was a misunderstanding to begin with.
Aqqqq
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-20T18:45:37.170Z
@Aqqqq: If this post answered your question, please accept it, so that the question no longer gets bumped to the frontpage periodically. Otherwise, please update your question to further clarify what information you're looking for. Thanks.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-20T18:47:01.967Z
@sr_gi: Comments are supposed to be for [transient information only](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment). Please edit your post to incorporate the relevant bits from the comments.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-20T19:03:20.327Z
@Murch Sure, we extended the discussion so much. I've updated the answer.
sr_gi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-22T16:07:20.370Z
@Murch Thanks for the reminding me. I upvoted your answer as well.
Aqqqq
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-18T15:26:19.267Z
2017-05-20T19:00:27.317Z
2017-05-20T19:00:27.317Z
sr_gi
<p>The section is simplifying to make the topic easier to access. Unfortunately, it is not being consistent with its simplification. This results in conflating wallets, users, and addresses as well as transaction records, transactions, and transaction outputs making the section confusing and borderline wrong. Also,  "Jane" is a user or address first, then a transaction input. First transactions are being spent, then there is talk about inputs and outputs out of nowhere.
It seems to me that the section should be rewritten.</p>

<ul>
<li>Of course Alice could actually be only using a single address, but as you've noted this is not recommended. </li>
<li>People are however <em>not</em> spending transactions, they are spending transaction outputs (also see <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/4301/5406">What is an “unspent output”?</a>)</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-18T19:20:32.893Z
So I should assume that my understanding is correct?
Aqqqq
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-20T18:48:52.353Z
@Aqqqq: Could you please clarify what you remain unsure about?
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-18T15:26:32.587Z
2017-02-18T15:26:32.587Z
2017-04-13T12:47:33.743Z
Murch
<p>The context is on this section: “What if the input and output amounts don’t match?” of this page: <a href="http://www.coindesk.com/information/how-do-bitcoin-transactions-work/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.coindesk.com/information/how-do-bitcoin-transactions-work/</a></p>

<p>I find it strange as it seems that reusing address is a bad practice (<a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse</a>). (i.e. When Person A makes a transaction with Person B, then Person A makes a transaction with Person C, there should be two different addresses (instead of one) from Person A involved.) Or does the “address” here actually mean bitcoin wallet?</p>

<transactions><wallet>
What does it mean by "many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address" in this context?
Aqqqq
# What does it mean by "many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address" in this context?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-02-18)

The context is on this section: “What if the input and output amounts don’t match?” of this page: <http://www.coindesk.com/information/how-do-bitcoin-transactions-work/>

I find it strange as it seems that reusing address is a bad practice (<https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse>). (i.e. When Person A makes a transaction with Person B, then Person A makes a transaction with Person C, there should be two different addresses (instead of one) from Person A involved.) Or does the “address” here actually mean bitcoin wallet?

**Tags:** transactions, wallet


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-02-18. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

> many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address

The sentence refers to the fact that the address can be involved in many different transactions. This is most likely seen with the address working as a receiving address, or destination address. For instance, imagine that you want to have an address posted in your personal website where you receive donations from people. It would be tedious to change it every time you receive a transaction.

As you already mentioned, reusing an address is not usually a good practice, since it could involve some privacy issues. By using a different address each time you perform a payment, you make it harder to link different bitcoin addresses owned by you (however, not impossible). By using always the same address when paying you make way easier for a third party to analyse your behaviour, based on where you are sending bitcoins.

Finally you should not mix up Bitcoin address with wallet. Think in a wallet as a collection of tools that let you manage your Bitcoin address (or addresses), such managing public/private keys to create transactions. What is said to be a bad practice in the [Bitcoin wiki](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse) is referring to use the same Bitcoin address multiple times. The wallet is a collection of tools, the Bitcoin address will be more like an endpoint.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So the "address" in "many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address" really mean bitcoin address, but in the context of bad practice?  
> **username_1**: You should not mix up wallet with address. A bitcoin wallet can hold multiple addresses, actually it usualy does. Bitcoin Core wallet for example creates a new address every time a transaction is performed to get the change returned, if there is change. That is: imagine that you have 2 BTC in address A1 form a single previous transmission, and you want to transfer 1 BTC to address B1. You should send 1 BTC back to yourself, otherwise it will be treated as fees (that is normally done to a new generated address, for example A2).  
> **username_0**: So the "address" in this context should be "wallet" instead, am I correct?  
> **username_1**: No, unfortunately you are not, it means Bitcoin address. Think in a wallet as a collection of tools that let you manage your Bitcoin address (or addresses). What is said to be a bad practice in the Bitcoin wiki page you provided is referring to use the same Bitcoin address multiple times. The wallet is a tool, the Bitcoin address will be more like an endpoint.  
> **username_0**: Sorry I am confused. What does "many different transactions tied to a particular bitcoin address" really mean if it is not referring to the bad practice involving using the same bitcoin address multiple times?  
> **username_1**: Forget for a moment about the bad practice. Imagine that you can only have a single Bitcoin address. Then, all the transactions in which you will be involve will be tied to that address. Now, if we take into account the "bad practice" consideration, it is not recommended to reuse addresses, but this do not mean that you can't do it. Hence, many different transactions can be tied to a single address.  
> **username_1**: Nice! Is that all?  
> **username_0**: Yes (for now at least). It was a misunderstanding to begin with.  
> **username_2**: @username_0: If this post answered your question, please accept it, so that the question no longer gets bumped to the frontpage periodically. Otherwise, please update your question to further clarify what information you're looking for. Thanks.  
> **username_2**: @username_1: Comments are supposed to be for [transient information only](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment). Please edit your post to incorporate the relevant bits from the comments.  
> **username_1**: @username_2 Sure, we extended the discussion so much. I've updated the answer.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Thanks for the reminding me. I upvoted your answer as well.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-02-18. Score: 1

The section is simplifying to make the topic easier to access. Unfortunately, it is not being consistent with its simplification. This results in conflating wallets, users, and addresses as well as transaction records, transactions, and transaction outputs making the section confusing and borderline wrong. Also, "Jane" is a user or address first, then a transaction input. First transactions are being spent, then there is talk about inputs and outputs out of nowhere.
It seems to me that the section should be rewritten.

* Of course Alice could actually be only using a single address, but as you've noted this is not recommended.
* People are however *not* spending transactions, they are spending transaction outputs (also see [What is an “unspent output”?](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/4301/5406))

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: So I should assume that my understanding is correct?  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Could you please clarify what you remain unsure about?  

---

