> 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 +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.