📅 Original date posted:2016-08-25
📝 Original message:> Le 25/08/2016 à 09:39, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
>> (I think this case if not completely unrealistic):
>>
>> What would happen, if a user gave out 21 addresses, then address0 had
>> receive funds in +180 days after generation where address21 had receive
>> funds immediately (all other addresses never received a tx).
>>
>> In a scan, address0 would be detected at <address-birthday>+180 days
>> which would trigger the resize+20 of the address-lookup-window, but, we
>> would require to go back 180day in order to detect received transaction
>> of address21 (new lookup-window) in that case.
>>
>> Or do I misunderstand something?
>>
>>
>
> That case is not unrealistic; a merchant might generate addresses that
> are beyond their gap limit, and orders get filled at a later date.
>
> In that case you will not get the same result when restoring your wallet
> in a block-scanning wallet and in Electrum.
>
> The lack of consideration for these cases is another issue with BIP44.
The development paradigm of "maybe detect funds" is not something we
should *not* encourage for Bitcoin IMO.
Users might sweep their existing bip32/bip44 seed (which could miss
funds according to the problem above) to a new wallet and discard the
previous seed.
But I agree with Luke-Jr.
This Thread is not about specification, it's about what's used and what
should be marked as standard.
New BIPs could cover "overhauled" proposals for BIP39 and BIP44.
Otherwise – very likely – nothing will happen.
</jonas>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160825/500f4db6/attachment.sig>;
Jonas Schnelli [ARCHIVE] /
npub1nf…3dtxs
2023-06-07 17:53:04
in reply to nevent1q…jw9g
Author Public Key
npub1nfrrurat393mqymf3s26pujyn5vujlem3pzcukr5p9d4qpklngxq43dtxsPublished at
2023-06-07 17:53:04Event JSON
{
"id": "9acb33533cb061a90bac4ecaf7471c8ce929af0a4de0e2803e76db47ba477806",
"pubkey": "9a463e0fab8963b013698c15a0f2449d19c97f3b88458e5874095b5006df9a0c",
"created_at": 1686160384,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0de582d020d9e7b879d25a73f3538dcc989a93bd96c004bb722b8ccea1b79ae2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b6beecb96b172bfac65fb7507429ea50537cd894474930a2c668c556ce63d43b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"7a4ba40070e54012212867182c66beef592603fe7c7284b72ffaafce9da20c05"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-25\n📝 Original message:\u003e Le 25/08/2016 à 09:39, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev a écrit :\n\u003e\u003e (I think this case if not completely unrealistic):\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e What would happen, if a user gave out 21 addresses, then address0 had\n\u003e\u003e receive funds in +180 days after generation where address21 had receive\n\u003e\u003e funds immediately (all other addresses never received a tx).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In a scan, address0 would be detected at \u003caddress-birthday\u003e+180 days\n\u003e\u003e which would trigger the resize+20 of the address-lookup-window, but, we\n\u003e\u003e would require to go back 180day in order to detect received transaction\n\u003e\u003e of address21 (new lookup-window) in that case.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Or do I misunderstand something?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e That case is not unrealistic; a merchant might generate addresses that\n\u003e are beyond their gap limit, and orders get filled at a later date.\n\u003e \n\u003e In that case you will not get the same result when restoring your wallet\n\u003e in a block-scanning wallet and in Electrum.\n\u003e \n\u003e The lack of consideration for these cases is another issue with BIP44.\n\nThe development paradigm of \"maybe detect funds\" is not something we\nshould *not* encourage for Bitcoin IMO.\n\nUsers might sweep their existing bip32/bip44 seed (which could miss\nfunds according to the problem above) to a new wallet and discard the\nprevious seed.\n\nBut I agree with Luke-Jr.\nThis Thread is not about specification, it's about what's used and what\nshould be marked as standard.\n\nNew BIPs could cover \"overhauled\" proposals for BIP39 and BIP44.\nOtherwise – very likely – nothing will happen.\n\n\u003c/jonas\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 819 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160825/500f4db6/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "9641ea9e4a5c67feb40ac4a7580617fa8f93d9502ca699c57a2d2e555aa76d176c62aa352199381896b6c22a62ddeb159ec28eca9a2892fd1d47ad8816e842e0"
}