Alright, but even if two (or more) of the change outputs were linked in a future transaction, no-one can tell if they are still linked to your wallet or not unless there is also an additional re-used address on the new transaction input side that has also been previously linked to one of the inputs on the transaction creating the change.


Yes, I understand the additional cost but still thought it worthy of consideration.


Regards,

Damian Williamson

From: Evan Klitzke <evan@eklitzke.org>
Sent: Sunday, 18 March 2018 4:50:34 PM
To: Damian Williamson; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] feature: Enhance privacy by change obfuscation
 

Damian Williamson via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> Operation: Provide a user selectable 'Enhanced privacy' option for
> transaction creation, when true the transaction randomly distributes
> change across up to twenty output addresses (minimum five?), provided
> each output is not dust.

This would be really expensive for the network due to the bloat in UTXO
size, a cost everyone has to pay for. Not to mention the fact that it
doesn't really seem that private, as the wallet is likely going to have
to rejoin those inputs in future transactions (and the user will have to
pay a high transaction fee as a result).

--
Evan Klitzke
https://eklitzke.org/