📅 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160825/5fed1fda/attachment-0001.sig>;
Thomas Voegtlin [ARCHIVE] /
npub10f…7ej47
2023-06-07 17:53:04
in reply to nevent1q…zld3
Author Public Key
npub10f96gqrsu4qpygfgvuvzce47aavjvql703egfde0l2hua8dzpszs67ej47Published at
2023-06-07 17:53:04Event JSON
{
"id": "b6beecb96b172bfac65fb7507429ea50537cd894474930a2c668c556ce63d43b",
"pubkey": "7a4ba40070e54012212867182c66beef592603fe7c7284b72ffaafce9da20c05",
"created_at": 1686160384,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0de582d020d9e7b879d25a73f3538dcc989a93bd96c004bb722b8ccea1b79ae2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b5a40218c600719decd3a362103528da267ef61acf92a0cfda666e607c77385",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9a463e0fab8963b013698c15a0f2449d19c97f3b88458e5874095b5006df9a0c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-08-25\n📝 Original message:Le 25/08/2016 à 09:39, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev a écrit :\n\u003e (I think this case if not completely unrealistic):\n\u003e \n\u003e What would happen, if a user gave out 21 addresses, then address0 had\n\u003e receive funds in +180 days after generation where address21 had receive\n\u003e funds immediately (all other addresses never received a tx).\n\u003e \n\u003e In a scan, address0 would be detected at \u003caddress-birthday\u003e+180 days\n\u003e which would trigger the resize+20 of the address-lookup-window, but, we\n\u003e would require to go back 180day in order to detect received transaction\n\u003e of address21 (new lookup-window) in that case.\n\u003e \n\u003e Or do I misunderstand something?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\nThat case is not unrealistic; a merchant might generate addresses that\nare beyond their gap limit, and orders get filled at a later date.\n\nIn that case you will not get the same result when restoring your wallet\nin a block-scanning wallet and in Electrum.\n\nThe lack of consideration for these cases is another issue with BIP44.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 836 bytes\nDesc: OpenPGP digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160825/5fed1fda/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "12ddeba2d09b027da4973fd283c42fe8fb0c934b97d7473cbea0e4a1569c63001257ff839449710290cde77d60ab28b8b2a6d3f994d5e1155a5e0bc3dcc6edb2"
}