Jonas Schnelli [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-08-25 📝 Original message:> Le 25/08/2016 à 09:39, ...
📅 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>;
📝 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>;