Pros & Cons of Using the "Satoshi" Method to Track User Deposits In this question user @lungj suggests using &quot;satoshi&quot; as a marker for user deposits.

Another method I’ve seen used on bitcoin is using satoshis as a
marker. For example, when paying for a one bitcoin item, an additional
7 satoshi could be added to the amount due to distinguish from another
user asked to add 6 satoshi. Payments must be in exact amounts for
this to work (but you can always refund an incorrect payment, less
fees, to a sender). This does not scale all that well if your IDs must
be permanent. This avoids the need for users to interact with a
contract to include metadata.

This method basically allows all users of a service to deposit funds to the same Bitcoin address while allowing us to keep track of who deposited which funds.
Off hand I can think of two potential issues with this method:

If we reserve 1 Bitcoin address to 100 users, we are adding a minuscule amount of $$$ to each payment (between 1 - 10 cents if Bitcoin exchange rate = $100,000)
It only works when we know in advance how much the user intends to deposit (otherwise there's no way of calculating how much extra &quot;satoshi&quot; was added to a payment (so it won't work for general deposits)

What are some of the other pros and cons of using this protocol to keep track of user deposits? Are the issues above solvable?
Thanks
That's a question about Ethereum, a system that's notoriously difficult to accept payments with due to some incredibly bad design decisions. Ethereum has operational costs for making new addresses which make this sort of poor engineering attractive.
We have no need to do anything ridiculous like that to try to distinguish payments, we can just make a new address per payment and have people pay to it. There's no need to try to re-use addresses as there's no resource being consumed by you creating new ones. All this would serve to do is cause mass confusion, difficulty when people made two transactions to pay an invoice, and unmitigated confusion about who owns what payment if anything goes awry.
There is no pros at all to what you're describing.
One new address, per invoice, per user. There's no reason to over think it.