AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 37 Bitcoin

skip addresses already given out under a label and widen the gap limit on an explicit advance in the terminal receive dialog

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Craig Raw

50/100 · Thin
skip addresses already given out under a label and widen the gap limit on an explicit advance in the terminal receive dialog
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component! No meaningful explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes two related Bitcoin wallet behaviors in Sparrow. First, when you ask for a new receive address, the wallet now skips any address that already has a label, because a label means that address was already given to someone. Previously, the desktop app skipped labeled addresses but the terminal app did not, so the terminal could accidentally hand the same address to two different payers. Second, when you explicitly advance past the normal gap limit, the wallet now widens the gap limit so that a later wallet recovery with the saved gap limit will still find that address. This prevents funds sent to a far-ahead address from being missed during recovery scans.

Recommended action

No immediate user action required; this is a defensive correctness fix. Users relying on labeled empty addresses as 'reserved' should verify behavior matches their workflow. Wallet developers should ensure gap-limit changes are persisted and tested against recovery scenarios.

Security signals we found

01

Address reuse prevention: labeled-but-empty addresses are now skipped consistently across desktop and terminal receive flows

02

Gap-limit widening on explicit advance reduces risk of missing funds during wallet recovery/rescan

03

Logic centralized in WalletForm to reduce UI-specific divergence

04

Unit tests added for both new behaviors

Risk score

Why this scored 37/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 7/10
Evidence quality 4/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.