Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DAAC1BB for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:56:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 19:04:16 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18BD6125 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mfilter43-d.gandi.net (mfilter43-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.174]) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771DA1720C9 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:56:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter43-d.gandi.net Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.196]) by mfilter43-d.gandi.net (mfilter43-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cU756nPpeGFg for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:56:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 178.8.223.185 Received: from [192.168.2.171] (dslb-178-008-223-185.178.008.pools.vodafone-ip.de [178.8.223.185]) (Authenticated sender: thomasv@electrum.org) by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5E121720B1 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:56:19 +0200 (CEST) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org> <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org> <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch> <278c940d-4b3b-2b8a-1aa5-f0991f1e6c8e@gmail.com> <57BEA0B0.3090308@jonasschnelli.ch> From: Thomas Voegtlin Message-ID: <756a4e04-c42d-cd61-794d-59f159c109b5@electrum.org> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:56:17 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57BEA0B0.3090308@jonasschnelli.ch> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="i7Rwpomel8Msaw3p64QQj36Ji9GM8psw4" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:56:23 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --i7Rwpomel8Msaw3p64QQj36Ji9GM8psw4 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="El7ligxNuEroE9tUduWmd0Spn45OuaIkE" From: Thomas Voegtlin To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: <756a4e04-c42d-cd61-794d-59f159c109b5@electrum.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130 References: <201608232012.12588.luke@dashjr.org> <90bf12f2-e109-28b4-e93e-54bbc8002cb4@electrum.org> <57BDACB2.9040307@jonasschnelli.ch> <278c940d-4b3b-2b8a-1aa5-f0991f1e6c8e@gmail.com> <57BEA0B0.3090308@jonasschnelli.ch> In-Reply-To: <57BEA0B0.3090308@jonasschnelli.ch> --El7ligxNuEroE9tUduWmd0Spn45OuaIkE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le 25/08/2016 =E0 09:39, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev a =E9crit : > (I think this case if not completely unrealistic): >=20 > 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). >=20 > In a scan, address0 would be detected at +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. >=20 > Or do I misunderstand something? >=20 >=20 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. --El7ligxNuEroE9tUduWmd0Spn45OuaIkE-- --i7Rwpomel8Msaw3p64QQj36Ji9GM8psw4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXvqShAAoJECvVgkt/lHDmW00P/Rh5scG1+lbQIgXD69NmTYU7 G/fxzLWJ8QTJmCl3umTBzM/o8cg3EFJ20Q1tBHtHCfoOMBmsG1V3ipCOrdIepg9N FuEqjwVhGoywvOE2LGo5UT72U5jOcf4HTLDw5wbc+s+EJCPO19jr04FoBkVOUlFi wJQIkSUz9muQTqC9P4y3fZuDa+1846ZFVw7DJHgfW4AWx3VTfmvXo//QHoZVtzZl DTEh4hiB4laqNOcdlOCKm9pYPWE6v8RSDLHmBIRDaLWgsmYf2zfBcdBoV4pkyHA2 NpC82kroPlOh71h2PV7C3/Wbkf+Xb8qrWyzg2p6l0CiYoWUfkUz2vICO7BXEy+Oz uI5pSPoCiFEXYqnIqOaYS7j2A/TGrqzbEg7oyshsb8lmC+fVWqcWSeKAneFEDRpr pGlRVclVbE976nv4DVbISYqUlsTr6vtofcThf7iEuZJ1KIkRCPubju6lqHx1vXbt lX+VLErpbQq7uqdXd4AvyxL+qsFVTVSdAxkd3C0IN+iIgNhQpGCngqfYShpZvhCA QeNTJyYOo5tu3KhNouw0AG6Q4wHsQzh11Kd/fc85PQr2exg6HnZhMgRrmx4MgdBE TQDh7Pbtt3MF/6jSOzw0aw/ZWmy4tgxNhnxm+htSrBazyey+qdLSJ42cH71GM3On CUuoS3pA86VT5IpOdlnw =U9be -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --i7Rwpomel8Msaw3p64QQj36Ji9GM8psw4--