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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
