<p>This is mostly about privacy</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Because they don't care about their privacy</p>
</li>
<li><p>Because they don't care about their clients/customers/friends' privacy</p>
</li>
<li><p>Because they want to keep their code simple</p>
</li>
<li><p>Because they don't want to keep a database of their addresses</p>
</li>
<li><p>Because their identity is already obvious: This is the case for exchange wallets</p>
</li>
<li><p>Because multisig addresses whose transactions require mulitple private keys to be signed are <em>one each</em> and I'm not aware of a &quot;multisig hierarchical deterministic wallet&quot; system. Multisig addresses are intended for reuse, at least until someone finds a way to solve this</p>
</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-12T18:42:42.577Z
For "Because their identity is already obvious: This is the case for exchange wallets", even if it is exchange, wouldn't they want to divide their wallets into 20 or 33 of them, so that if they get impacted for any negative reason, only 5% or 3% of their asset is affected and is not end of the world. If it is one address and it is impacted, it is 100%
nonopolarity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-12T18:44:13.523Z
Instead of using multiple addresses, they might be using addresses where the signatures of multiple people are needed which are even more secure.
MCCCS
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-12T18:46:28.330Z
And yes they do use multiple addresses. Some are cold addresses like the multisig ones and some are hot addresses.
MCCCS
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-12T18:48:49.700Z
You may see the self-named holders of Tether ERC20 here: https://etherscan.io/token/0xdac17f958d2ee523a2206206994597c13d831ec7#balances The numbers after exchange name show the wallet number
MCCCS
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-12T18:55:25.943Z
Come to think about it, it may even be "They want to give the signal that, me (such a big guy), is buying, folks"
nonopolarity
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-12T17:28:46.163Z
2021-02-12T18:42:57.243Z
2021-02-12T18:42:57.243Z
MCCCS
<p>It is said that we should never reuse addresses, so I think one time into the address, and one time out, and that address should be abandoned.</p>
<p>So the top holders of bitcoins should know that too, but the news is having headlines:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.finchannel.com/business/financial-markets-and-stocks/79884-top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-bought-17x-more-btc-than-sold-in-last-30-days" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Top 100 richest Bitcoin addresses bought 17x more BTC than sold in last 30 days</a></li>
<li><a href="https://cointelegraph.com/news/top-100-bitcoin-addresses-accumulated-11b-more-btc-in-the-past-30-days" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Top 100 Bitcoin addresses accumulated $11B more BTC in the past 30 days</a></li>
</ul>
<p>So why aren't they following this simple rule?</p>

<address-reuse>
It is said that never reuse an address, but the news is stating biggest bitcoin addresses are buying?
nonopolarity
# It is said that never reuse an address, but the news is stating biggest bitcoin addresses are buying?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-02-12)

It is said that we should never reuse addresses, so I think one time into the address, and one time out, and that address should be abandoned.

So the top holders of bitcoins should know that too, but the news is having headlines:

* [Top 100 richest Bitcoin addresses bought 17x more BTC than sold in last 30 days](https://www.finchannel.com/business/financial-markets-and-stocks/79884-top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses-bought-17x-more-btc-than-sold-in-last-30-days)
* [Top 100 Bitcoin addresses accumulated $11B more BTC in the past 30 days](https://cointelegraph.com/news/top-100-bitcoin-addresses-accumulated-11b-more-btc-in-the-past-30-days)

So why aren't they following this simple rule?

**Tags:** address-reuse


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-02-12. Score: 2

This is mostly about privacy

1. Because they don't care about their privacy
2. Because they don't care about their clients/customers/friends' privacy
3. Because they want to keep their code simple
4. Because they don't want to keep a database of their addresses
5. Because their identity is already obvious: This is the case for exchange wallets
6. Because multisig addresses whose transactions require mulitple private keys to be signed are *one each* and I'm not aware of a "multisig hierarchical deterministic wallet" system. Multisig addresses are intended for reuse, at least until someone finds a way to solve this

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: For "Because their identity is already obvious: This is the case for exchange wallets", even if it is exchange, wouldn't they want to divide their wallets into 20 or 33 of them, so that if they get impacted for any negative reason, only 5% or 3% of their asset is affected and is not end of the world. If it is one address and it is impacted, it is 100%  
> **username_1**: Instead of using multiple addresses, they might be using addresses where the signatures of multiple people are needed which are even more secure.  
> **username_1**: And yes they do use multiple addresses. Some are cold addresses like the multisig ones and some are hot addresses.  
> **username_1**: You may see the self-named holders of Tether ERC20 here: https://etherscan.io/token/0xdac17f958d2ee523a2206206994597c13d831ec7#balances The numbers after exchange name show the wallet number  
> **username_0**: Come to think about it, it may even be "They want to give the signal that, me (such a big guy), is buying, folks"  

---

