{"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:I built such a merchant system handing out BIP32 addresses. \n\nThe gap size problem does not arise there since such a system has to have an extra database keeping track of requests, so there is no added cost of storing the key coordinates used by them. A scan is not needed the keys can be accessed at random order.\n\nTamas Blummer\nhttp://bitsofproof.com\n\nOn 23.04.2014, at 21:00, Tier Nolan \u003ctier.nolan at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Pavol Rusnak \u003cstick at gk2.sk\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Setting the gap limit to high is just a small extra cost in that case.\n\u003e \n\u003e Not if you have 100 accounts on 10 different devices.\n\u003e \n\u003e I meant for a merchant with a server that is handing out hundreds of addresses.\n\u003e  \n\u003e The point is to have a single system that is compatible over a large number of systems.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140423/693f3869/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/20140423/693f3869/attachment.sig\u003e"}