4
There is a lot of red highlighting in the 'Label' column of my online/watch-only Electrum client, including for addresses which contain considerable balances.
After trying to find out what this meant, I found out that it is something to do with the gap limit, and I read in the thread Electrum 1.9 released on BCT:
"red means that the address is beyond the gap limit, so it will not be recovered if you restore from seed the red color will disappear once other (preceding) addresses receive coins."
This makes me think, that if my hardware is damaged and I need to restore the wallet from seed, that I will lose the BTC which I have stored in those red-labelled addresses. I don't know why this would be, as I didn't think it worked that way, but I don't know enough about it to know, and this is coming from the lead developer.
- First, what exactly does it mean, that I have this red highlighting?
- Second, should I be concerned about it, do I need to do anything about it?
- Third, if I should do something about it, what should I do?
Thanks.
Additional information: In the past, there was a time when I was signing a transaction with my offline wallet, and I did not have all the addresses generated which were involved with the transaction from the online wallet. Because of this, I used some command in the Electrum command-line interface of the offline wallet to generate new addresses, I think by increasing the gap limit possibly. In fact, I used the thread Offline send - can't send from change address for guidance on how to do whatever it was I did:
I used a mixture of those three commands, but in the end I think I did it mainly by using the command, wallet.storage.put( 'gap_limit', 20 ). I may have done this repeatedly, or with a large number, to make sure I definitely generated the addresses I was looking for; I don't know if this was excessive and may have caused problems.
Edit: I should probably add, that all of these red-highlighted addresses are change addresses.
Thanks for that thorough answer. Do you know why the change was sent to an address beyond the gap-limit in the first place? – Miles Bardan – 2015-01-17T15:36:06.517
@MilesBardan: I can only guess, but e.g. BitcoinCore treats addresses differently whether you requested them explicitly (i.e. as addresses to receive funds to), or they were generated to refill your pool of unused addresses. If Electrum behaves similarly, I would assume that one of the commands you used created such "visible" addresses, so Electrum would probably not send change to one of those, because they might already be known as yours to another party. So, if there was such a gap of "explicitly requested addresses" the change would flow to an unused address beyond the gap instead. – Murch – 2015-01-17T15:58:56.990