{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ccegg9n9lnx6huppxg43m95488yur7pfemkn3pz0agjws5ffvtts0ex8m8","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-04-23\n📝 Original message:The most useful meta data to optimize chain scan is the key birth date, then the allowed gap size. \n\nTamas Blummer\nhttp://bitsofproof.com\n\nOn 23.04.2014, at 20:39, Tier Nolan \u003ctier.nolan at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Different users could have different gap limit requirements.  20 seems very low as the default.\n\u003e \n\u003e A merchant could easily send 20 addresses in a row to customers and none of them bother to actually buy anything.\n\u003e \n\u003e Setting the gap limit to high is just a small extra cost in that case.\n\u003e \n\u003e Bip-32 serialization doesn't have a way of adding meta data though.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/88279ae3/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 495 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/88279ae3/attachment.sig\u003e"}