public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:08:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57BEA775.4020701@jonasschnelli.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <756a4e04-c42d-cd61-794d-59f159c109b5@electrum.org>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]


> 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>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2016-08-25  8:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-23 20:12 [bitcoin-dev] BIP Status updates (including to Active/Final Status) - BIP 39, BIP 43, BIP 44, BIP 67, BIP 111, BIP 125, BIP 130 Luke Dashjr
2016-08-23 20:54 ` Kenneth Heutmaker
2016-08-24  6:59   ` Jonas Schnelli
2016-08-24  8:34   ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-08-24 12:51 ` Thomas Voegtlin
2016-08-24 13:47   ` Andreas Schildbach
2016-08-24 18:22     ` Luke Dashjr
2016-08-24 14:18   ` Jonas Schnelli
2016-08-24 14:42     ` Jochen Hoenicke
2016-08-25  7:39       ` Jonas Schnelli
2016-08-25  7:56         ` Thomas Voegtlin
2016-08-25  8:08           ` Jonas Schnelli [this message]
2016-08-25  8:12             ` Jonas Schnelli
2016-08-25  8:50               ` Marek Palatinus
2016-08-25  9:02                 ` Pieter Wuille

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=57BEA775.4020701@jonasschnelli.ch \
    --to=dev@jonasschnelli.ch \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox