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 <thomasv@electrum.org>
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"
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
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--i7Rwpomel8Msaw3p64QQj36Ji9GM8psw4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="El7ligxNuEroE9tUduWmd0Spn45OuaIkE"
From: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
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 <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.
>=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)
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=U9be
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--i7Rwpomel8Msaw3p64QQj36Ji9GM8psw4--