<ol>
<li>They're not &quot;identical&quot;: transaction outputs are uniquely identified by their <em>outpoint</em>. The outpoint is the combination of the id of the transaction that created the output and the position of the output in the transaction's output list.</li>
<li>The protocol tracks funds based on outputs, not addresses. In fact, the notion of
addresses doesn't appear at the protocol level at all, it's just an out-of-band
mechanism to convey the receiver's <code>scriptPubKey</code> to the sender. Hence, while
weird, it's perfectly legal to create multiple outputs that pay to
the same address in one transaction.</li>
<li>Presumably the receiver has some sort of automated process that withdraws from a service whenever the minimum threshold is reached. For convenience they use the same address. The service however batches payments over a longer period of time than the receiver needs to reach the minimum threshold.</li>
<li>Since the UTXOs are not identical (see 1.), UTXOs are individually selected to be used as inputs in transactions. As the receiver apparently has accepted the privacy loss stemming from the address reuse, they also don't seem to mind the privacy loss from spending multiple times from funds received to the same address.<br />
Alternatively, the receiver prefers to have multiple outputs of a smaller value over having a single output of a bigger value, as @RedGrittyBrick suggested in the comments. However, this usually appears in the context of liquidity management for enterprise wallets, and the amount seems a bit small for this explanation.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-27T01:40:19.017Z
Thank you very much. Actually I was thinking something like point 3 in your answer.
Dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-22T14:11:21.007Z
2022-05-22T14:44:44.913Z
2022-05-22T14:44:44.913Z
Murch
<p>I am building a script that is indexing all bitcoin transactions in real time with all their details etc. But I am looking here at this transaction - <a href="https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/8327996113c5ad326853c8af39424e12b02cadcab03a7e3b387902fe7d503081" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/8327996113c5ad326853c8af39424e12b02cadcab03a7e3b387902fe7d503081</a></p>
<p>I wonder why are there so many repeating outputs, I marked them with red. The outputs are absolutely identical with same address and same amount. Some of them might be spent, some of them might be not (actually in other example transactions I think I have seen that - identical outputs with different statuses - spent or unspent).</p>
<p>Also, might be silly question - why are some of them spent while others are unspent?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/DIvZi.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/DIvZi.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-22T11:46:28.830Z
@RedGrittyBrick I don't understand what you really mean?
Dan
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-22T14:12:59.253Z
See "Change splitting" at https://blog.bitgo.com/utxo-management-for-enterprise-wallets-5357dad08dd1
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-22T14:14:38.620Z
Isn't it more like $40?
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-22T14:27:41.720Z
@Murch. ooops yes. Not sure how I arrived at that number. I blame fuzzy screenshot, bad eyesight and dumb carelessness. But anyway, looked to me like it might be change splitting to some amount the recipient deemed useful.
RedGrittyBrick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-22T14:46:10.273Z
Change splitting is a good point, but in the context of this transaction, it doesn't seem obvious to me. The amounts are a bit small and the address reuse makes it unlikely to be done for privacy.
Murch
<transactions><address><hash><utxo>
Repeating identical outputs in bitcoin transaction
Dan
# Repeating identical outputs in bitcoin transaction

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-05-22)

I am building a script that is indexing all bitcoin transactions in real time with all their details etc. But I am looking here at this transaction - <https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/8327996113c5ad326853c8af39424e12b02cadcab03a7e3b387902fe7d503081>

I wonder why are there so many repeating outputs, I marked them with red. The outputs are absolutely identical with same address and same amount. Some of them might be spent, some of them might be not (actually in other example transactions I think I have seen that - identical outputs with different statuses - spent or unspent).

Also, might be silly question - why are some of them spent while others are unspent?

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/DIvZi.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/DIvZi.png)

**Tags:** transactions, address, hash, utxo

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @username_1 I don't understand what you really mean?  
> **username_1**: See "Change splitting" at https://blog.bitgo.com/utxo-management-for-enterprise-wallets-5357dad08dd1  
> **username_2**: Isn't it more like $40?  
> **username_1**: @username_2. ooops yes. Not sure how I arrived at that number. I blame fuzzy screenshot, bad eyesight and dumb carelessness. But anyway, looked to me like it might be change splitting to some amount the recipient deemed useful.  
> **username_2**: Change splitting is a good point, but in the context of this transaction, it doesn't seem obvious to me. The amounts are a bit small and the address reuse makes it unlikely to be done for privacy.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-05-22. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

1. They're not "identical": transaction outputs are uniquely identified by their *outpoint*. The outpoint is the combination of the id of the transaction that created the output and the position of the output in the transaction's output list.
2. The protocol tracks funds based on outputs, not addresses. In fact, the notion of
   addresses doesn't appear at the protocol level at all, it's just an out-of-band
   mechanism to convey the receiver's `scriptPubKey` to the sender. Hence, while
   weird, it's perfectly legal to create multiple outputs that pay to
   the same address in one transaction.
3. Presumably the receiver has some sort of automated process that withdraws from a service whenever the minimum threshold is reached. For convenience they use the same address. The service however batches payments over a longer period of time than the receiver needs to reach the minimum threshold.
4. Since the UTXOs are not identical (see 1.), UTXOs are individually selected to be used as inputs in transactions. As the receiver apparently has accepted the privacy loss stemming from the address reuse, they also don't seem to mind the privacy loss from spending multiple times from funds received to the same address.  
   Alternatively, the receiver prefers to have multiple outputs of a smaller value over having a single output of a bigger value, as @username_1 suggested in the comments. However, this usually appears in the context of liquidity management for enterprise wallets, and the amount seems a bit small for this explanation.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you very much. Actually I was thinking something like point 3 in your answer.  

---

