Your "wallet" is "you", and your "addresses" are "one-time payment codes" to pay "you".  These one-time payment codes could be reused to go to the same person, but it's really bad practice unless they explicitly request it

I wouldn't call them codes, it confuses things  even more. And why would it be not recommended to re-use addresses, except for privacy reasons?

I think it's confusing only because the original "address" terminology has been so widely used.  But to someone who is completely new-to-bitcoin, that that string of 33 letters is a "code" that lets you send money to that person/wallet.  There are millions of addresses in your wallet, but they all go to the same place:  they all go to one person/wallet.   It should be that your wallet is really your "identity" and addresses are temporary payment codes that the network understands to route the Bitcoins to your wallet.

And not re-using addresses is more of a best-practices thing.  For privacy reasons, and [super-]long-term security reasons (super-long = decades).  A lot of people don't realize the privacy implications of constantly reusing addresses and irrationally decide that it's best to re-use them.  Making them "one-time payment codes" furthers the notion that they should not be re-used unless you have an explicit reason to.  Yes, there are reasonable reasons for doing so, but it should not be the default.

This text at blockchain.info is a source of confusion:



It would be better if it said:


Bitcoin Address: Addresses are identifiers which you use to receive bitcoins from another person.

I like "one-time payment codes". In retrospect, we should have used that. The UI that came forth out of the "address" idea encourages address reuse and gives people the wrong idea that address=person.

Btc addresses *are* a place to store something. You send coins to an address, they stay there for all
eternity unless you do something. Problem is, Bitcoin-qt doesn't give you control over what you're doing,
and it has the tendency to hide addresses. In an attempt to not confuse the user, it causes panic.

By the way, I get the exact opposite problem.  Armory is too transparent about this:  it shows all your change addresses, and if you double-click on a transaction it shows all outputs, including change.  I have had multiple people email me and say "Help me I've been hacked!  Armory sent all my coins to this mysterious address I didn't authorize!"  If they look closely, I identify that address is part of their wallet, but people still get uncomfortable.

I'd really like for change addresses to be transparent, but it's not always possible.  At least not if you're going to give the user lots of information about their transactions.

I actually, already have those addresses marked in the address list as "[[ Change Received ]]" with an appropriate description in a tool tip.  And there's a little "(?)" helper above the output list when viewing a transaction that kind of explains it.  But that only helps the patient users.  A lot of people don't take the time to try to figure it out, and would rather write me a frantic email and have me explain it to them.